Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new context: nothing sent is stored, and the score is a deterministic formula rather than an AI judgement, plus what each result contains. It stops short of discussing rate limits, coverage of the job pool, or result volume beyond the limit parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the example phrasings, with no filler. Each sentence carries a distinct payload (purpose, triggers, mechanics/caveats).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description does well: it explains the ranking, the per-job output fields, and the privacy/determinism caveats. Remaining gaps are the where vs location distinction and what happens when no CV or titles are supplied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 11 properties, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and a 3 is the baseline. The description's notes on the target-roles-or-past-titles fallback and the cv/titles/skills combination largely restate what the schema already documents, and it does not disambiguate the subtle where vs location pair.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb+resource (searches current jobs, ranks by match score) and adds the useful detail that it returns matched and missing skills. The quoted example phrasings ('find jobs that fit my CV') make the intent unmistakable. It does not name the sibling tools it overlaps with (search_jobs, match_cv), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Two concrete trigger utterances pin down when an agent should pick this tool, which is stronger than implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-not and no routing against the near-neighbours search_jobs, match_cv, similar_jobs, or compare_jobs, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.