Rank analyzed jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'flag which clear the MATCH_SCORE_THRESHOLD' but does not clarify whether this flag is a returned field or a persisted modification to stored data. It also does not indicate if the operation is read-only or if it has side effects, leaving ambiguity about its actual behavior.

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 with no filler. The main action and key criterion (match score, ATS tiebreaker, threshold) are front-loaded, and every part adds value. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose but omits important context such as the output format (e.g., what a flagged application looks like), potential side effects, or prerequisites beyond having analyzed applications. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need to resolve.

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 schema has a single optional parameter 'threshold' with 0% description coverage. The description references MATCH_SCORE_THRESHOLD, which likely corresponds to the threshold parameter, but does not explicitly state that the parameter overrides the default threshold. This is implied but not clearly explained, so it partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 action (rank), the object (analyzed applications), the criteria (overall match score with ATS tiebreaker), and the outcome (flagging those above the threshold). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_job (single job analysis) and search_jobs (job discovery).

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 it operates on already-analyzed applications, which suggests a sequence (analyze first, then rank). However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it relative to specific alternative tools, such as 'use analyze_job before this' or 'this is not for searching jobs.' The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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