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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the no-fabrication constraint, enumerates what is returned (tailored CV, match score, role-fit notes, interview prep), and warns of per-network trial rate limits plus the sign-up path for unlimited use. Missing only auth/permission or retry/error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and outcome list, then the operational caveat. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the return contents, and the constraint, rate-limit, and sign-up notes round out what an agent needs to call and explain the tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-explanatory, so the schema already does the work. The description references the CV and job posting only implicitly, adding no format or length guidance beyond the schema.

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+resource and scope: 'Tailor a CV/resume to a specific job posting' followed by the concrete transformation (ATS keyword rewriting). The output list (tailored CV, match score, role-fit notes, interview prep) makes it clearly distinct from a pure scoring tool.

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 implies the use case (tailoring to a job posting) and adds rate-limit/sign-up guidance, which is useful operational context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over the sibling score_cv, so the main routing decision is left to inference.

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