match_job_requirement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the employer-role authorization requirement, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about whether matching writes records, is idempotent, or is long-running.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the role requirement. Slightly wasteful in that '直接传入 job_id' adds little beyond restating the required parameter.

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 no explanation, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves max_results and the side effects of the matching operation unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at job_id ('直接传入 job_id') without format or constraints, and max_results (default 10) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 action (执行自动匹配) against a specific resource (已发布的岗位), and the caller learns that job_id is the entry point. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_candidates, though its boundary with match_candidates is not spelled out.

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 one real prerequisite — the employer role — which is genuinely useful routing information. It offers no when-not guidance and does not say how it differs from match_candidates or match_jobs_for_me.

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