im_get_match_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a score and breakdown, but does not discuss side effects, permissions required, or read-only nature. It provides basic but not comprehensive transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the core function and output. No unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description gives the essential function and output information, but lacks details such as whether the tool requires both entities to exist, error handling, or the exact structure of the 'breakdown'. Given no output schema, the description could be more complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it references 'specific candidate and job' but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints. The schema descriptions are generic, and the description does not compensate significantly.

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 calculates a match score between a specific candidate and job, and specifies the output range (0-1) and that it includes a breakdown. It is clear and precise, but could better distinguish from sibling batch match tools like im_match_candidates_for_job.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like the batch matching tools or how it differs from them. This lack of guidance could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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