get_job_matches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results come from cache unless stale or force_refresh=True, and cv_path triggers profile extraction that dynamically populates queries, seniority exclusions, and scores. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior, but the cache and dynamic-population semantics are real value beyond structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core fetch purpose front-loaded before the cache and cv_path caveats. No filler or redundancy.

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 12-parameter, zero-required tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors (caching, force_refresh, cv_path-driven matching). It leaves out how matching/scoring is computed and any auth or rate-limit context, which keeps it short of fully complete.

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, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: that sources defaults to all active registered sources and that cv_path causes automatic profile extraction that reshapes queries and scoring. These are behavioral couplings between parameters and results, not mere restatements.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('matched job listings') and enumerates the registered sources, which clearly separates it from generic siblings like job_search or job_fetch. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It implies usage through the cache/force_refresh and cv_path mechanics, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions against alternatives such as job_search, search_linkedin_jobs, or filter_jobs_by_preferences. The agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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