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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the regulatory framing (NYC Local Law 144/EEOC) and the fact that it suggests neutral replacements, but says nothing about how findings are scored, disclaimers, or limits of the legal-risk judgement.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the enumerated detection categories; the follow-up on suggested replacements earns its place as output behavior. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 a full output schema and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey scope and detection categories, which it does well. The one shortfall is that it frames itself purely as job-description review while the tool equally accepts plain-text resumes, leaving that use case to the schema alone.

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%, so the two parameters are fully documented in structured data and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format or sizing guidance, and it never mentions that a resume can be scanned even though resume_data is one of the two inputs — 'hiring criteria' only loosely gestures at it.

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 gives a specific verb (reviews) applied to a specific resource (job descriptions and hiring criteria) and enumerates exactly the signal classes it detects: gendered language, age-coded terms, credential inflation, cultural exclusion, and LL144/EEOC risk. No sibling covers bias scanning, so it is unambiguously distinct from detect_resume_suspicion or score_resume_against_jd.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('reviews job descriptions ... and hiring criteria'), but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as detect_resume_suspicion or score_resume_against_jd. The only concrete guidance ('supply this, resume_data, or both') lives in the schema, not the description.

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