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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it requires member:read, explains that output includes positive matches and published conditions, and explicitly excludes skills-gap assessments. This helps set user expectations beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The auth requirement is front-loaded, followed by the core behavior and then the behavioral boundary. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, auth, output expectations, and an important boundary, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, with a complex 11-parameter surface that is mostly undocumented, and no guidance on choosing this over search_jobs, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent constructing a correct request.

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 only 18%, and most of the 11 parameters (role, sort, tags, company, location, workMode, experience, personalized, etc.) are undocumented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'professional interests and target roles' without mapping those to any specific parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Match', and identifies a clear resource ('current jobs') and audience ('connected member’s stated professional interests and target roles'). It also sets a distinct boundary by forbidding missing-qualification or skills-gap assessments, which distinguishes it from related job-analysis tools.

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?

The description implies use for personalized job matching and states an auth requirement, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus sibling tools like search_jobs or get_job_context. The 'do not produce missing-qualification' line is a helpful exclusion, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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