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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses per-call billing, that charges are confirmed only on business success, and that content-policy violations, model timeouts, or generation failures trigger an automatic full refund. It also states the anti-fabrication guarantee. What it omits is anything about the returned artifact or processing time, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads capability and the core integrity constraint, the second front-loads the billing rule. Nothing is wasted and no sentence repeats structured data.

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?

For a 3-mode generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the commercial and integrity dimensions well but says nothing about what the agent receives back (diagnostic report vs. rewritten resume text) or how modes differ in output. An agent can call it correctly but not predict the response shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (jd, goal, resume, requestId) are already documented, including the enum meanings and idempotency key. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the integrity constraint, so the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas applies.

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 names a concrete verb set (diagnose match against a JD, rewrite in STAR format) and a resource (resume), with a notable constraint (never fabricate experience). It's clear what the tool does, though it emphasizes match/rewrite while the default goal 'optimize' is only visible in the schema, and it doesn't differentiate itself from unrelated siblings (all content-generation tools, so differentiation is less critical).

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 implies usage context (you have a resume and optionally a JD) and discloses the billing/refund trigger conditions, which is useful when deciding whether to call. However, it never says when to pick this over a sibling tool or when not to call (e.g., missing JD for match/rewrite is only stated in the schema), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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