Recommendations

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It explains that results are scored and hard-filtered by preferences (remote, US-only, minimum salary), mentions the Pro tier requirement, and notes return details (ranked jobs with match details, default 10, limit 50). This adds valuable context not in 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence packs key information (action, scope, scoring, filtering), and the second provides usage examples and specifics. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations indicating a read-only operation on a closed set, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (ranked jobs with match details), the default and maximum results, the user context (authenticated, Pro tier), and the filtering criteria. No essential information is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing the single 'limit' parameter with its range and default. The description reiterates the default and max ('default 10, `limit` up to 50'), adding minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get top job recommendations for the authenticated user, scored against their profile and hard-filtered by preferences.' It uses a specific verb (get), resource (job recommendations), and scope (personalized, filtered). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jobs (general search) and match_job (likely single job match).

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 provides explicit usage guidance with examples: 'Use for "show me jobs that match me" or "what should I apply to this week?"' It implies the tool is for personalized recommendations based on user profile. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing an opportunity for clearer differentiation.

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