match_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it uses saved job hunt filters (titles, locations, skills, salary, etc.) and returns only jobs not already seen, applied to, or rejected. This adds value beyond the tool name. It doesn't mention pagination or error handling, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds key behavioral details and a pointer to update_job_hunt. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function, filtering behavior, and prerequisite for changing filters. It implies a list return ('only returns jobs'), which is clear enough for an agent. It does not explicitly state return format or edge-case behavior, but for its complexity it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual info (e.g., that jobHuntId references the saved configuration with filters), but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantics are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get new job matches based on a saved job hunt configuration.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource (job matches tied to a job hunt). It distinguishes from siblings like search_jobs by referencing the saved configuration and the filtering of already seen/applied/rejected jobs.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (when you want new matches from a saved job hunt) and explicitly points to update_job_hunt for changing filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for ad-hoc searches, use search_jobs), so it lacks a bit of alternative guidance.

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