Get Job Matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'spends no credits and changes nothing' — a useful cost/side-effect detail not in the annotations. It also discloses the 500-character excerpt limit and the newestJobMatchId checkpoint pattern for polling, adding real behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then parameter behaviors, then usage boundaries and next steps — every clause carries operational information. It is a dense single paragraph that runs slightly long, but no sentence is redundant against the schema.

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?

For a 9-parameter read tool with an output schema, it covers purpose, filtering modes, full-read escalation, incremental polling, cost profile, exclusions and next steps. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return-value detail is already handled by the output schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: job_match_ids returns the full posting, skills and benefits (not just a list entry), job_url reads any posting without saving it, and after_job_match_id is tied to storing newestJobMatchId. These clarify intent rather than restating field types.

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 precise verb+resource ('List the user's matched jobs') and enumerates the returned fields (job_match_id, title, company, location, match score, 500-char excerpt, apply URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from aiapplyd_update_job_preferences and routes onward to aiapplyd_apply and aiapplyd_triage_matches, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly maps parameters to intents: job_match_ids to read full postings, job_url to read without saving, query/location/remote_only to narrow, after_job_match_id for incremental polling. It also gives a clear exclusion ('Do not use it to change what the user is matched against; use aiapplyd_update_job_preferences') and names next-step tools.

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