get_top_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about global scope ('across all stored jobs') and ranking by score, but does not mention the min_score filtering behavior or sort direction explicitly. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple with two optional parameters, but the description omits any mention of the min_score parameter's role as a filter threshold. Since there is no output schema and annotations, the description should ideally clarify this behavior to be fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per the rubric.

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 specifies the action (return), the resource (jobs), and the ranking criteria (stack-match score), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_jobs and filter_jobs by emphasizing 'top N' and 'across all stored jobs'.

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: the tool is for retrieving top matching jobs ranked by score. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, so it falls into the 'implied usage' category.

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