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

Adds context the annotations do not carry: a connected GetMattered account is required and each call consumes the user's credits, which explains why idempotentHint is false and matters for agent retry behavior. It also discloses the fallback (no resume_text means the account's stored resume is used) and the file ingestion path. It stops short of covering failure modes or what happens if both resume_text and resume_file are supplied.

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?

Purpose, alternatives, and inputs are front-loaded in the first few sentences and every sentence is actionable. Mild redundancy: the ChatGPT attachment/resume_file instruction appears at the end and duplicates almost verbatim the resume_file field description already in the schema.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be spelled out), the description still summarizes them, and it adds the account/credit prerequisite, the input fallback chain, and the natural next tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 each parameter already documents itself, including the 'omit to use the account resume' behavior, so most of the description's parameter prose restates structured data. The added value is limited to orchestration framing (paste/attach in chat, then pass as text or as resume_file) and does not clarify precedence when both inputs are present, so 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Score a resume for ATS compatibility') and immediately enumerates the outputs (overall score, section scores, matched/missing keywords, rewrite suggestions). It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (getmattered_optimize_resume), so an agent can distinguish scoring from rewriting 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 an explicit branch: pass job_description to score against a posting, omit it for general ATS readiness. It states an exclusion ('Do not use it to rewrite the resume; use getmattered_optimize_resume') and a next step (optimize_resume with the same posting), which is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure the rubric rewards.

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