find_matching_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It states extracts skills and keywords from CV and searches USAJobs, but does not disclose side effects, network calls, or whether it modifies the CV. It provides core behavior but lacks deeper context for agent decision-making.

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 sentences: first states the purpose concisely, second adds context 'Requires a saved CV.' No redundant words; information is front-loaded. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality. However, it omits details like what happens if no CV is saved (error behavior) or the return format. Despite this, completeness is high for a simple tool.

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 schema describes the single parameter results_per_page with full coverage (100%). The tool description does not mention this parameter, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents it adequately.

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 finds federal jobs matching a saved CV, differentiating it from sibling tools like search_jobs which likely allow arbitrary queries. Verb is specific ('find matching') and resource is clear ('federal jobs from USAJobs using CV').

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 description explicitly notes 'Requires a saved CV,' providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_jobs, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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