check_deal_breakers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses intentional determinism, the location/remote rule, top-of-band salary logic, and the opt-in veto policy. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the parameter names alone convey.

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 compact, roughly five sentences, and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of behavior or policy, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a check-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core semantics and edge cases (opt-in, deterministic, remote requirements, salary basis). It does not fully spell out every parameter's value domain, but the output schema and parameter names fill most remaining gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain the location and salary comparison logic (top-of-band) and remote confirmation. However, it leaves salary_min and the expected remote_status values implicit, so an agent must still infer how to populate those parameters.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('a role against the hard constraints in your config file'), immediately distinguishing the tool from the job-search, application, and profile siblings. It clearly identifies what the tool does and what domain it operates on.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: testing a role's location and salary against configured constraints, and it explicitly explains the opt-in behavior ('with nothing configured, nothing is vetoed'). It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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