list_recruiting_applicant_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description reinforces read-only behavior and adds context that fields are generated by Huly, providing transparency beyond annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Efficient and clear.

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 that output schema exists, description not required to detail returns. Annotations cover safety. Description adds context about generation, which is helpful. Could briefly mention that matches are system-triggered, but overall sufficient for a list tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description summarizes filter parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what schema descriptions already provide. It does not clarify input formats or constraints further.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'applicant matches', and emphasizes they are read-only and generated by Huly. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recruiting_applicants or list_recruiting_candidates, as it specifically focuses on system-generated matches.

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?

Description implies usage for reading generated matches, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_recruiting_applicants). It mentions filter capabilities, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.

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