recommend_job_tooling

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that ranking uses hard compatibility constraints and provenance, which hints at deterministic filtering behavior, but it does not disclose edge cases or more detailed behavioral traits beyond annotation coverage.

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?

The description is one tightly worded sentence with the main verb front-loaded and no filler. It is concise and well structured, though its brevity limits how much guidance it can provide.

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?

This is a complex tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, yet the description is a single clause. It does not explain 'job/tool library', 'hard compatibility constraints', or 'provenance', nor does it mention key inputs like topK, units, or machine constraints, leaving substantial gaps for invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it names no parameters. The phrase 'supplied job/tool library' only vaguely references the tools array, leaving material, features, machine, units, and topK semantics entirely to the raw 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?

The description uses a specific action verb ('Rank') and identifies the resource ('tooling from the supplied job/tool library') plus the method ('hard compatibility constraints and provenance'). It is clearly a ranking/recommendation tool rather than a list/get/compare tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 description implies usage when a job/tool library is supplied and ranked tool recommendations are wanted, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names. Given the large sibling set, this is only implied usage rather than clear routing.

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