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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses concrete return contents (breakdown, fixes, missing keywords), rate limiting (10/day/IP), and paid key behavior. This is significant context that annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, return value, optional params, and rate limit/auth. It's a bit detail-heavy with pricing and URLs, but remains well-organized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, how each optional parameter alters behavior, and the constraints (rate limit, api_key). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds relational meaning: 'company' triggers employer-specific ATS rules, 'job_description' switches to keyword-overlap scoring, and 'api_key' lifts the daily cap. This goes well beyond the individual parameter descriptions in the 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?

The description opens with 'Score a resume 0-100 with ResumeAI's production ATS engine' — a specific verb, resource, and range that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ats_stats and which_ats by focusing on scoring and returning an actionable breakdown.

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?

It specifies when to use optional parameters (company, job description, api_key) and notes the rate limit for free usage. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context makes the primary use case clear: to get an ATS score and fixes for a resume.

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