rank_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the behavioral trait of a 'deterministic, transparent scoring policy,' which informs the agent that rankings are reproducible and likely explainable, adding context beyond the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Rank known jobs') and appends the key policy detail. No words are wasted, and every part 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?

Given the tool has three parameters including a richly defined CandidateProfile object, the description is minimal. It does not explain how the profile is used, the effect of limit, or the nature of the scoring policy in practice. The output schema exists, which helps, but the description alone leaves notable gaps for correct 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%, and the description does not mention any parameters or how the profile affects scoring. The schema provides titles and types, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the role of job_ids and the complex CandidateProfile fields underspecified.

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 'Rank known jobs' specifies a clear verb and resource, and the qualifier 'deterministic, transparent scoring policy' adds unique value that distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs (searching), export_shortlist (exporting), and explain_match (explaining). It clearly indicates the tool ranks a predefined set of 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?

The phrase 'known jobs' provides clear context that this tool operates on job IDs already obtained, aligning with search_jobs as a precursor. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route an agent to the appropriate tool among siblings.

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