match_resume_to_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it performs well by disclosing the exact scoring weights (skills 50%, title 25%, remote 15%, salary 10%) — genuinely useful behavioral detail that reveals how inputs influence ranking. However, it doesn't disclose behavior on no-match results, staleness of listings, or what the ranked output structure looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs the scoring rubric efficiently without fluff. Slightly dense in the middle (the weight list), but every element earns its place.

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 scoring rubric covers skills, title, remote, and salary, but years_of_experience and currency are params that get no explanation in the description and no output schema compensates. The 'ranked recommendations' return format is never described, leaving a moderate gap for a scoring tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how title, remote, and salary parameters contribute proportionally to the score, and by defining the role of skills as the dominant factor. This links parameters to their ranking impact, which the schema alone doesn't convey.

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?

States a specific verb (matches), resource (candidate resume skills vs live verified job listings), and the deliverable (ranked recommendations) with explicit scoring weights. The multi-factor scoring rubric makes it clearly distinct from the generic search_jobs sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over search_jobs, which is the most likely confused sibling. The description implies resume-based matching but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria — e.g., 'use this when you have extracted skills from a resume; use search_jobs for general keyword queries.'

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