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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile. The description usefully adds that no Autojob account/upload is required, the profile is not persisted, and results include match_reasons. It still says nothing about pagination via cursor, result ordering beyond the 'sort' enum, or rate/limits.

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?

Front-loads the core action and resume-extraction instruction, with the no-login caveat and match_reasons note earning their place. But it spends most of its length on candidate_profile handling while ignoring the majority of the tool's parameters, so the sizing is misaligned with the tool's actual surface.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Yet for a 10-parameter, nested-object tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the filtering, sorting, and pagination behavior almost entirely undocumented, which is inadequate to invoke it fully.

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 coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, and the description only addresses candidate_profile (with sub-fields employment, skills, preferences). The nine query/filter parameters (q, sort, limit, cursor, remote, salary, company, location, profession) are completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb ('Find') and resource ('matching Autojob jobs'), plus a concrete mechanism (extract titles/skills from the attached resume into candidate_profile). It never names the sibling search_jobs, so the agent can't tell how this differs from a plain job search without opening the schema.

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?

Gives one clear conditional: omit candidate_profile only to use a signed-in account's saved resume, and notes no login/upload is needed. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_jobs or how the 8 filter parameters (q, sort, remote, salary, etc.) should be used, leaving the primary invocation strategy implicit.

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