Analyse a job description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the extraction mechanism (bullet parsing plus a curated keyword dictionary), that no LLM is involved (deterministic, limited recall), and that the JD is persisted. It still omits what happens on re-submission, whether the text is deduplicated, and any permission or size constraints.

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 the core action and followed by the mechanism and the important 'no LLM' caveat. No filler, though the em-dash clause could be tightened slightly.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers intent, mechanism, return shape (structured skills/tools/competencies), and the determinism caveat. What is missing — error behavior, persistence semantics, and downstream pipeline ordering — is minor but non-trivial.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond the schema (e.g., it does not mention the 20-character minimum).

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 specific verb+resource pair ('stores a pasted job description and extracts structured requirements') and even names the extracted categories (skills, tools, competencies). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like careerproof_match_requirements, but an agent can tell it is the ingestion/extraction step.

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?

Usage is only implied: storing and extracting a JD is clearly the upstream step before match_requirements or find_evidence_gaps, and the note that 'the connected client can add further reasoning' hints at pipeline position. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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