market_fit

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

The description details the tool's behavior: computing headline coverage, identifying must-have and missing skills. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the analytical nature. It could mention data freshness or potential limitations, but overall it provides sufficient transparency.

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 description is concise with two informative sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds critical usage nuance. No redundant or filler content.

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 complexity (14 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the tool's functionality well. It explains the conceptual output but could be more explicit about the exact return structure. Still adequate for a read-only analysis 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 description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema, such as clarifying that 'skills' is the measured set (not a filter) and that using a single skill probes demand. With 100% schema coverage, this extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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's purpose: 'Score a skill list against the live open-vacancy market for a filtered role' and lists specific output metrics (headline coverage, must-have skills, missing skills). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on market fit analysis, not job search or CRUD operations.

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 explains that 'skills' is the measured set and that facet parameters define the role, providing clear guidance on how to use the tool. It also states that a single skill probes that skill's demand. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, slightly limiting completeness.

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