Get Job Search Brief

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing that constraints are returned VERBATIM and 'never guessed', that warnings[] appear on contradictions/missing values, that persona text may be empty, and what sync/applying fields mean. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, keeping it at 4.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the rest is a single dense run-on paragraph packed with parentheticals and trailing fragments like 'applying.answer_level is the Screening answers level (facts, history, queued)'. Given there is no output schema the content is largely justified, but the parsing burden is high and the structure could be broken into clearer segments.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the entire burden of explaining the return payload and does so thoroughly — listing every section, its fields, and edge cases (empty persona, contradictory constraints, null role when sync is off). An agent has everything needed to interpret the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing to disambiguate and the description correctly focuses entirely on the returned payload instead of inventing arguments.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read the server-composed job-search brief') and then enumerates its sections, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It also positions itself against siblings by naming itself the entry point of the agentic job-search workflow and excluding exploration/applying tools from its scope.

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?

States when to reach for it (the entry point of the capture/scoring/proposal workflow, with a playbook pointer) and draws an explicit boundary ('applying is outside its scope'). It stops short of naming specific sibling alternatives for adjacent needs, so it is clear context without full when-not routing.

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