Keyword coverage vs job postings

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description correctly matches that by framing it as 'find' and 'report'. It adds the useful detail that the output is a coverage comparison rather than a rewrite, but says nothing about limits (e.g. the 1-10 posting cap or the top bound) or what the report looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and no filler. The second sentence drifts slightly into editorial advice rather than tool specification, but it is short enough to earn 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it only says a coverage report is produced without describing its structure or how `top` shapes it. Adequate for a simple read-only analysis tool, but an agent cannot predict the result shape.

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 67%; profile_text and job_descriptions are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces that the profile text is the comparison baseline. The `top` parameter, which controls how many recurring terms are reported, carries no description in either place, so its meaning must be inferred.

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 concrete verb+resource: extracts recurring terms from job descriptions and reports which are present in the profile text. That is clearly distinct from the sibling review_* and lint_field tools, though the description never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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 second sentence gives a conditional rule ('only add a missing term if it truly describes the person's work'), which is guidance about acting on results rather than about when to call this tool. There is no explicit when-not case or pointer to review_profile/lint_field as alternatives.

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