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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing privacy ('no data is stored'), cost model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), and billing fairness ('failed calls are not charged'), plus the limitation 'no AI rewriting'. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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 core purpose, then limitations, privacy, and pricing in a compact block. It is dense but each clause (ATS framing, no storage, pricing) earns its place; only minor tightening possible.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description still covers privacy, pricing, and the non-AI behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this paid tool 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 coverage is 100% and documents all three params with ranges (job up to 4,000 chars, top 10-60, resume up to 6,000 chars), so the schema carries the load. The description references 'top terms to add' and plain-text inputs but adds no syntax beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: ATS-style keyword check between a resume and job ad, including the outputs (coverage/missing terms, 0-100 score, top terms). This is categorically distinct from every sibling, which are all job-listing/scraping tools, so an agent can route to it immediately.

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 clarifies the input model ('plain text analysis of the two texts you send') and rules out the AI-rewriting interpretation, giving clear context for use. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not or an alternative, but the sibling set is unambiguous so 4 fits.

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