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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs synchronously and is metered, pointing to get_account_status. This adds valuable context about timeouts and usage limits. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only scoring tool, the disclosed traits are relevant and sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral notes (sync, metered) follow efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the input format (via schema), the synchronous behavior, and the metering. It tells the agent what to expect back (score and feedback). While it doesn't detail error handling or output structure, these are minor for a tool with a clear schema and no output schema. It's complete enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters in detail, including the formatting instructions for job_description and the purpose of filename. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Score', the resource 'job description', the scale (0-100), and the outcome (say what is missing and what to fix). It is distinct from siblings like generate_role (which creates a role) and get_assessment (which retrieves a previous assessment).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over generate_role or get_assessment, or any prerequisites like having a job description text ready. The only implicit clue is that it scores text, but there's no direct comparison.

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