match_jobs_to_resume

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'rank public jobs'. It does not explain what ranking means (e.g., scoring scale, if it alters data, permissions needed, or side effects). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very concise at six words, but it lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is positive, but here it results in under-specification. A slightly longer description with key context would be better.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not explained, the description is incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of the required 'id', optional filters, and output format. The tool's complexity demands more detail.

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 0%, so the description should add meaning to parameters. It only implies that 'id' is the resume identifier, but does not explain 'kw', 'loc', 'min_score', or 'limit'. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 verb 'rank' and the resource 'public jobs' with context 'against a saved resume'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_jobs and compare_jobs by implying a personalized scoring. However, 'saved resume' is ambiguous without specifying how the resume is identified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_jobs or compare_jobs. No prerequisites mentioned, such as having a saved resume or understanding the ranking model. The agent is left guessing the appropriate context.

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