explain_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds context that the explanation includes supporting signals and tradeoffs, which is useful but not essential. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is exactly as long as needed, with no filler or redundant phrasing. The core purpose is front-loaded and the sentence is perfectly efficient.

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?

The tool has a complex profile parameter and an output schema, but the description does not explain what profile is for or any prerequisites (e.g., job must exist). While the output schema covers return format, the missing context around the required profile and the implied validity of job_id makes this incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only hints that job_id identifies a known job but does not explain the 'profile' object at all, and it provides no details on fields like skills, seniority, or salary. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 states a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource ('the score, supporting signals, and tradeoffs') for one known job, clearly differentiating from siblings like search_jobs (which finds jobs) and rank_jobs (which ranks multiple). It is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's function.

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: one uses this when they have a specific job_id and want an explanation of its match. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over rank_jobs or search_jobs, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The context is clear but not explicit.

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