filter_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real filtering behavior: hard elimination of over-experienced senior roles and blacklisted titles, which is more than the name conveys. However it omits whether this is purely read-only, what the returned structure looks like (filtered list plus ranks/scores?), and how min_match_score interacts with the hard eliminations.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the elimination rules second. Minor ambiguity in '3+ or 5+ years senior roles' costs a point, since the exact threshold logic is unclear.

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-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description explains what filtering does but not what comes back, how ranking is expressed, or whether the candidate profile must exist first. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the notion that filtering is measured against the candidate profile, but no parameter maps to that profile and no extra syntax or format detail is provided beyond the schema.

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 pair (filter and rank) and the resource (jobs), plus the criterion (relevance against the candidate profile). It never names the sibling it complements, search_jobs, so an agent must infer the relationship from the schema's 'jobs returned by search_jobs' hint rather than the description.

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 implied by the pipeline (jobs come from search_jobs) but the description never states when to call this versus search_jobs, apply_job, or bulk_apply, nor any prerequisites such as needing a configured candidate profile. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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