job_match

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output ('returns ranked matches with wage ranges') but does not confirm that it is a read-only operation, explain any side effects, or note limitations. The 'DEMO' hint is left unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's operational behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds return details. However, the appended 'DEMO' is cryptic and adds clutter without clarity, so it is not perfect.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage. It omits the role of 'county', offers no context on Kenyan job categories or how matching is performed, and provides no relationship to sibling tools. The 'DEMO' marker raises questions without answers.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references the 'skills' parameter ('Match worker skills'), but it fails to explain the 'county' parameter, including its format, purpose, or optionality. This leaves a critical part of the input under-specified.

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 function: 'Match worker skills to Kenyan job categories' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions returning 'ranked matches with wage ranges,' which adds useful detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like wage_benchmark, so it loses one point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of appropriate use cases. The 'DEMO' tag is not elaborated as a usability caveat.

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