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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the operation is free (cost/rate implications), it runs on "NextRole's critic engine," the scale is 1–10, and it sets expectations that scores reflect CV-to-role fit rather than hiring outcomes.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The value proposition and return shape are front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence carries the expectation-setting disclaimer, so every sentence earns its place.

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 must carry the return contract — and it does, specifying the overall match, per-dimension 1–10 scores, strengths, gaps, and the single top fix. For a two-parameter, read-only, deterministic-input tool, nothing an agent needs to 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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage: cv_markdown as Markdown, job_spec as the target job description), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format constraints or input guidance beyond what the schema already says, making the baseline 3 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 and resource (scores a CV against a job spec) and enumerates the exact deliverables: overall match, per-dimension 1–10 scores, strengths, gaps, and a single top priority. That output profile clearly separates it from tailor_cv_to_role (rewrites the CV) and ats_lint (format/ATS checks), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

"The free first read" implies sequencing (use this before the paid/tailoring steps) but never names an alternative or states an explicit when-not condition. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no sibling tool is referenced by name, which is the minimum-viable level.

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