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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that three scores are returned and must never be averaged, that quality comes from a versioned judge with rules fallback while keyword coverage uses fixed rules, and it cites a rules version. It also states the posting length envelope, which affects invocation success.

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 trigger and the sibling exclusion, then moves to return-shape guidance, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call. Slightly dense and mildly redundant in the parenthetical '(also coverage for compatibility)', and the rules-version sentence is useful but tacked on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: headline resumeQuality, separate jobFit, keywordCoverage with alias, plus matched/missing terms, sentences, match types, weights and required/preferred coverage. For a two-parameter read-only tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully described, so the baseline would be 3; the description nonetheless adds interpretation the schema cannot, by explaining that scores are reported separately rather than combined, which shapes how an agent should treat the two inputs as independent dimensions. It reinforces the 120–20,000 character posting bound.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource (match a resume to a job posting) and immediately scopes the use cases: match quality, missing keywords, apply/no-apply. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tailor_resume, so an agent can route without opening either 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 trigger ('user has a resume and a job posting and asks how well they match...') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('For rewrites, use tailor_resume instead'). The job_description schema also routes link inputs to fetch_job_post, covering the main adjacent case.

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