im_match_jobs_for_candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool runs an AI matching engine (implying compute cost) and returns scores/reasoning, but does not disclose whether it has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word adds value, with no redundant or missing information relative to its length.

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 covers the core purpose and output but lacks parameter details, differentiation from siblings, and behavioral context (e.g., whether candidate_id must exist, or the return format beyond 'ranked jobs with scores'). Given no output schema, more detail on the return structure would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 67% description coverage (candidate_id and min_score have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain what candidate_id refers to or the effect of min_score and 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 clearly states the tool runs IntelliMatch's AI matching engine to find best-fit job openings for a given candidate, and specifies it returns ranked jobs with match scores and reasoning. This distinguishes it from the sibling `im_match_candidates_for_job` which does the reverse.

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?

The description implies the tool is for matching jobs to a candidate but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like `im_match_candidates_for_job` or `im_get_match_score`. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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