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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the evidence scope, rejects synthetic percentage scores, warns that missing evidence is not a proven skill gap, and explains optional curated evidence and authentication behavior. These details materially affect both invocation and interpretation of results.

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?

The purpose and input-preparation guidance are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence adds an operational constraint or interpretation rule. The long access-code sentence combines several steps, while the final authentication details make the definition somewhat dense rather than maximally streamlined.

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 a two-parameter read-only assessment tool, it covers the inputs, optional authentication workflow, evidence provenance, and important output caveats. With no output schema, however, it leaves the actual result structure and evidence presentation largely unspecified, and the phrase "verify delivery" is not fully explained.

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?

The schema documents requirements but leaves accessCode undescribed; the description supplies its format, prerequisite validation, unchanged passing, effect on included evidence, and omission behavior. It also reinforces the one-capability-per-item convention with practical guidance to split compound job-description sentences.

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 opening sentence gives a specific operation and resources: mapping individual job requirements to public professional evidence. It clearly conveys the fit-assessment purpose without promising a numeric score, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with build_reading_list, fetch, or search.

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?

It gives concrete invocation guidance: split compound requirements, call check_access_code first when a recruiter code is supplied, pass that code unchanged, and omit it to use automatic connector credentials. It does not address broader when-not-to-use cases or when another sibling tool would be preferable.

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