match_cv

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: stateless ('nothing is stored'), anonymous, rate-limited (~12/hr per IP), and output structure ({profile, matches}). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear main sentence and a bulleted list for arguments. Concise without being overly terse; all sentences are informative.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers input parameters, core behavior, and return shape. Could add more detail on ranking algorithm but is adequate for selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter (cv_text, city, min_salary, sponsor, sort, top) and their meanings. Adds value beyond the schema's type information.

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: 'Match a CV against the live board and return the best-fitting roles' with a detailed pipeline (semantic retrieve→rerank→comp-weighted ranking). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing stateless and anonymous matching.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidelines including required argument (cv_text ≥120 chars), optional filters (city, min_salary, sponsor), sort options, and return count. Mentions rate limit. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_jobs or tailor_cv.

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