score_job_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool uses MCP sampling (sends prompt to client's LLM) and the server needs no API key. This adds value but does not mention other traits like idempotency or error 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The second sentence on MCP sampling is useful but could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted words overall.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic purpose and a notable behavioral aspect, but lacks details on prerequisites, return format beyond '0-10 with reasoning', or error conditions.

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 only parameter (job_id) has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what this ID represents or how to obtain it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to add necessary meaning.

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 verb 'Score' and the resource 'how well a saved job matches the user's profile/resume', with a specified range (0-10) and reasoning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jobs or save_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?

The description implies the tool is for evaluating job fit, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., job must be saved), or when not to use it.

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