match_jobs_for_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the role prerequisite and the shape of the result (score-sorted jobs with a breakdown), but says nothing about which resume is used, whether the resume must exist first, or any rate/limits behavior.

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 compact clauses, front-loading the purpose and then the return shape; nothing is wasted. It could be marginally tighter but is well structured.

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 the return details need not be explained, and the description correctly summarizes that result. For a zero-parameter read tool with a role note, this is nearly complete, lacking only the resume-source detail.

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 and the schema coverage is complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters whose meaning the description could clarify.

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 and resource (match published jobs) scoped to the caller's own resume, and notes the candidate-role requirement. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the reverse-direction sibling match_candidates, but does not name that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

It gives a precondition (requires candidate role), which is useful usage context, but offers no when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives like search_candidates or match_candidates. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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