Get Job Matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real context by stating it 'spends no credits' and describing ordering and the 500-character excerpt cap. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result-size limits beyond what the schema's page/limit fields imply.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core listing behavior and the mode-routing details follow, with no filler words. It is a long single paragraph, and the itemization of return fields overlaps with the output schema, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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, zero-required listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: mode selection, filtering, incremental polling semantics, safety/credit cost, and next-step tools. Return values are described redundantly with the output schema but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds value by grouping parameters by intent (read-in-full vs. unsaved-URL vs. filtering vs. incremental polling) and by explaining the after_job_match_id round-trip ('store newestJobMatchId ... and pass it back'). The 'up to 10' cap for job_match_ids is useful framing even though the schema states the same limit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the user's matched jobs') and immediately scopes it as the roles GetMattered found against saved preferences, ordered best-first. It names the return payload (job_match_id, title, company, match score, excerpt, apply URL), which distinguishes it from application-oriented siblings like getmattered_get_applications.

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?

It enumerates the distinct modes of the tool — job_match_ids for full posting detail, job_url for unsaved postings, query/location/remote_only to narrow, after_job_match_id for incremental checks — each with a condition that selects it. It also states an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it to change what the user is matched against') and routes to getmattered_update_job_preferences, plus names follow-up tools (apply, save_matches, skip_matches).

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