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

Discloses behavior annotations cannot convey: the billing order (promotional allowance first, then one normal credit), budget limits, and that it never submits to an employer. It also explains the idempotency contract behind idempotentHint in operational terms ('retry identical input with the same request_id; completed packs are reused without another charge').

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?

Five short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then prerequisites, cost, retry semantics, and the safety boundary in descending priority. No sentence is redundant and none repeats structured data.

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 5 parameters, nested option objects, no output schema and no field descriptions, the description covers cost, idempotency, prerequisites, and side-effect boundaries well. It leaves a gap on how a target is selected (job_id vs custom_job) and what the agent receives back, which matters for a charging operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and only partly does: it explains request_id's retry role and hints at single-target selection via 'exactly one target'. The job_id vs custom_job exclusivity, the options object (resume_template, base_resume_text, resume_targeting_mode), and application_id are left entirely to the bare 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 and resource ('Prepare one resume and cover letter') with a hard scope qualifier ('for exactly one target'). It does not name which sibling to prefer, but the resource is concrete enough that no sibling tool could be confused with it.

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 real preconditions and routing: 'Requires documents:generate' and 'Read get_account_context for the current bonus and limits' name a sibling to consult first. It also draws a clear boundary ('Never submits to an employer'), though it never explicitly contrasts with get_application_package for retrieving an already-built pack.

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