search_and_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches, ranks by match score, and returns sorted results. It also notes that 'results_per_page' controls how many postings are fetched before ranking. However, it omits potential error states or file format constraints.

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 well-structured with a brief intro followed by a clean list of parameters. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema exists. The description covers the workflow and all parameters adequately. It could mention behavior on invalid input or no matches, but given the output schema, it is largely 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear, concise explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'file_path: absolute path to the resume file', 'query: role or keywords'). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, though it does not detail constraints like valid file formats.

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 tool's function: 'search live jobs, then rank each result by how well it matches the given resume.' It specifies the output ('sorted by match score') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_jobs' and 'match_resume_to_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 tool is labeled as 'Convenience tool,' implying it combines search and matching. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the presence of sibling tools (e.g., 'search_jobs', 'match_resume_to_job') allows agents to infer appropriate usage contexts.

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