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

Discloses value beyond the annotations: outputs are saved to the user's account and are editable/downloadable as PDFs, free accounts get one resume and one cover letter total while Plus includes them per job, and it uses the connected account with no extra sign-in. The annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent), so this added context warrants a 4, though it does not explain what regeneration does to existing documents.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then usage conditions, then behavioral details in a logical order. Slightly long but each sentence adds distinct information without filler.

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, but the description covers storage destination, account requirements, and quota limits. The one notable gap is that destructiveHint=true leaves unclear whether regenerating documents replaces or overwrites prior ones.

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 documents all three parameters. The description adds where to source the slugs (company_slug and job_slug from job listings), but says nothing extra about the documents parameter's enum choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 (write), resources (resume and cover letter), and scope (tailored to a Himalayas job from the user's Himalayas profile). An agent can distinguish it from sibling document tools like update_document, delete_document, get_document, and list_documents without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when the user's CV is generic, they have no cover letter, or an application form asks for one.' This is clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool or a when-not condition.

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