match_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the auth requirement (employer role) and the return content (scoring details plus experience/education). It does not state whether the operation is read-only or otherwise safe, nor any rate limits or side effects, leaving a behavioral gap for a matching operation.

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, well front-loaded sentence that pairs purpose with the role prerequisite and the return summary. Nothing is wasted, though brevity comes at the cost of the parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. But for a tool with a nested 'preferred' object and an opaque required array at 0% schema coverage, the description does not provide enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. 'Top-N' loosely hints at max_results, but the critical 'required' (array) and 'preferred' (object) parameters are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a significant gap for a nested-object input.

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+resource ('匹配候选人' / match candidates) and notes the return shape (Top-N with scoring details, work experience, education). This differentiates it somewhat from sibling search_candidates, though it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('需要 employer 角色' / requires employer role), which implies usage context. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to search_candidates or match_job_requirement, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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