Match Role to Shortlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose internal behavior: 1-3 searches, merge/dedupe, and a key limitation that why-fit lines are derived ONLY from the public role title and category. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and latency characteristics, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then input guidance, then behavior and caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return shape (candidates with why-fit lines) plus the limitation on those lines. It lacks error/failure behavior and pagination or result-truncation details for a 1-25 result 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. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Role brief or must-haves' by specifying a single-line brief format and an important constraint ('no client names'), which the schema does not convey.

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 concrete verb+resource transformation ('Turn a role brief into a ranked shortlist') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like search_top_candidates or list_categories. The example brief makes the input shape unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this first for sourcing requests,' which positions it ahead of sibling search/list tools, and adds the recruiter-verification caveat. No named exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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