Match Job

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the description's 'Score how well... matches' as a read operation. The description adds the 'Pro tier' access requirement, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions, but no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits).

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 concise but includes necessary details like return fields and usage examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A slight reduction in the list of return fields could improve brevity, but it is still well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing all return fields (matchPct, dimension breakdown, skill lists, etc.) and the usage constraints. It provides complete context for an agent to invoke correctly, including Pro tier restriction.

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 100%, so parameter descriptions are already present. The tool description adds value by explaining practical constraints: 'Pass the id field from a search_jobs result VERBATIM' and 'Full HireJack job detail URL'. This goes beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 'Score' and the resource 'user-job match', and provides example queries like 'how well do I match this job?' which distinguishes it from other tools. It also lists specific return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says 'Use for queries like...' and mentions 'Pro tier', indicating when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like skill_gap or interview_prep, so it lacks exclusions.

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