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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'writes nothing, changes nothing' is largely a restatement and earns little. The valuable addition is the return-shape description, which matters because there is no output schema; the free-tier 2,000-character limit lives only in the schema, not here.

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 front-loaded sentences with the read-only guarantee and the return contents up front, and the alternative tool named last. Slightly penalized because 'writes nothing, changes nothing' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and spends words on no new information.

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?

Coverage of the return values compensates for the absent output schema, which is the right call for a three-parameter analysis tool. However, the unexplained 'variant' parameter and the absence of any note on how 'limit' shapes the response leave a real hole in a tool an agent must call blind.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all. With schema coverage at 67%, the gap is real: the 'variant' parameter has no description in either place, so an agent must guess its meaning and valid values. The text adds nothing the schema does not already say about job_description or limit.

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 combination ('gap analysis against a posting') and immediately enumerates the outputs (matched keywords, missing keywords, coverage figure, fact orderings). This distinguishes it from the sibling resume/profile tools, and the pointer to resume_create confirms it is the analysis step rather than the mutation step.

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?

'Act on it with resume_create' gives an explicit next-step routing and implies the tool is for pre-write analysis. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. versus profile_get for existing data), so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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