Match a candidate to a job

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description must add the operationally important facts, and it does: the cost ('Costs 1 HireLayer credit') and the return shape. Missing any note on rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, followed by the sourcing/prerequisite and the credit cost. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value (a 0-1 score plus per-criterion evaluation), and it discloses the credit cost and upstream dependencies. Nothing essential for correct invocation is omitted.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by naming where matching_criteria originates (extract_job_criteria) and where candidate_text comes from (info_resume.text), which the schema does not state.

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 and resource ('Score one candidate against a job') and quantifies the output ('score between 0 and 1 and an evaluation of each criterion'). The singular 'one candidate' implicitly contrasts with the sibling rank_candidates, so the agent can distinguish scope.

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 routes the agent to siblings: criteria come from extract_job_criteria and resume text from parse_resume (info_resume.text), which is real pipeline guidance. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for multiple candidates, use rank_candidates' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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