compare_to_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior, output details, and blockers list, plus the default profile loading behavior and profile_path override. It omits potential failure modes like a missing profile.yaml, which would be useful, but overall it is transparent.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, output, usage guidance, and parameter details without redundancy. Front-loaded with the main comparison action and outcome, making it easy to parse.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description provides enough context for an agent to know when to call it, what inputs matter, and what to expect. It could mention error conditions like missing profile, but this is a minor gap for a comparison tool.

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 0%, and the description explicitly explains profile_path (default, template). Vacancy_id is only implied as 'вакансию' and not described in terms of source or format, so the description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the specific verb 'сопоставляет' and resource (vacancy vs candidate profile), and enumerates concrete outputs: verdict, matched/missing skills, and blockers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on search, market analysis, or database status.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Используйте перед тем, как рекомендовать вакансию кандидату как хороший вариант' and warns against self-assessment. Does not name specific alternative tools, but the directive is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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