Rank candidates for a job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: a billing cost of 1 HireLayer credit per call, which affects how freely an agent should invoke it. It stops short of describing the ranking output or failure modes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and its cardinality limit front-loaded and the cost caveat second. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it says nothing about return shape (ordering, scores, per-candidate errors) or behavior when a candidate is malformed. The credit cost and batch limit are covered, but the return-value gap leaves the agent guessing.

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 50% and the schema's own descriptions are terse ('Job description.', 'Resume as plain text.'). The description clarifies that job_text is one shared job description and candidate_text is resume text, but adds no syntax, format, or ID-uniqueness detail beyond the schema.

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 (rank) and resource (candidates) plus the batch scope ('up to 10 candidates against the same job description, from their resume texts'). This implicitly separates it from the single-pair match_candidate, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 'up to 10' batch framing implies when this is preferable to match_candidate, and the credit cost hints at deliberate use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to parse_resume, extract_job_criteria, or match_candidate.

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