Explain a job evaluation

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by noting that the posting text is 'wrapped as untrusted data,' which is a security-relevant behavioral detail. It also implies the output includes quoted evidence, which clarifies the nature of the data. No contradiction with annotations, and the read-only nature is consistent.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and return value. Every part earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value well. However, it lacks usage context and parameter details, and it does not clarify what 'gate result' or 'quoted evidence' mean for an agent unfamiliar with the domain. Adequate but with 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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions neither jobId nor includeDescription. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the boolean includeDescription's effect is ambiguous — it likely controls whether the posting text is included, but this is not spelled out.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('full gate result, score breakdown with quoted evidence, and the posting text wrapped as untrusted data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'discover_jobs' or 'preview_application', which serve different functions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it returns, not when to call it (e.g., after an evaluation or when debugging a gate failure). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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