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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so "Deterministic; changes nothing" largely restates them. The description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape (0-100 score plus matched and missing keywords), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is scored and how, when to use it, and its side-effect-free nature. Output shape is front-loaded right where an agent needs it.

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?

A one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema; the description covers the input semantics, the result contents, and the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it 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?

With one fully documented parameter, the schema baseline is a 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: a single application_id resolves both the tailored resume and the target job, explaining why there are no separate resume/job inputs. The schema itself only says the id comes from list_applications.

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 (score) and resource (one application's tailored resume vs. that application's job) and specifies the output measure: keyword coverage 0-100 with matched and missing keywords. This is clearly distinguishable from the getter/list siblings, none of which compute a score.

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?

"Use it when the user asks how well a resume fits the posting" gives a concrete trigger condition. It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, but no sibling tool performs scoring, so the routing risk is low.

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