Evaluate Job Fit

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose genuinely useful behavior — the weighted tier structure and the hard fact that a missing required language fails the gate. However, it omits key runtime semantics: whether the score is deterministic or model-judged, and what happens when work_authorized is null (unknown vs. treated as unauthorized), which directly changes the gate outcome.

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: the first front-loads the action and output range, the second compactly enumerates the four weighted tiers. No filler, no repetition of schema 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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, return values and inputs are covered elsewhere; the description supplies the scoring model on top of that. The remaining gap is tool-selection context and null-handling semantics, which are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some meaning by explaining that language and work authorisation feed a pass/fail gate worth 10 points, which frames how candidate_languages and work_authorized are used — but it says nothing about the null/default handling those parameters expose.

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 (score candidate-to-job fit), an explicit output scale (0-100), and the named mechanism (4-tier ATS engine). The tier breakdown makes the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like prepare_job_application or tailor_resume, but the function is clearly distinct from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools, nor on prerequisites (e.g., must the job be retrieved via get_job_details first, or is it a pre-application screen?). The reader must infer usage entirely from the name and tier list.

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