get_similar_jobs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are limited to public jobs, ranking is deterministic, and scores are relevance weights rather than probabilities — a distinction that prevents misinterpreting the output.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The weight enumeration is terse and information-dense, though bare numbers ('type 2, level 2') are slightly cryptic without units.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the ranking semantics that the schema cannot. Only the absence of explicit routing guidance against siblings leaves a minor gap.

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% and both parameters (jobId, limit) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description hints at result sizing ('small set') but adds no format or range detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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: 'Recommend a small set of public jobs related to one job.' The 'related to one job' scoping and 'public' qualifier distinguish it from get_jobs/search_jobs, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'related to one job' — an agent can infer this is for finding neighbors of a known job — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_jobs or get_related_roles instead, and no stated prerequisites.

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