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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pricing ($0.2 per call) and a compliance constraint, but omits permissions, rate limits, data handling, and error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and output format, followed by a compliance note and price. No wasted wording.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and 'structured JSON' is not further described, so an agent does not know the response shape. The description covers the basic purpose and a compliance constraint but leaves behavioral and output details unspecified.

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%, so the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond restating that a CV is screened against a job description.

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 (screen) and resources (CV against job description) plus the output format (structured JSON). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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?

Provides a compliance constraint ('No protected-class inferences') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fikra_chat or fikra_quote. Usage is only implied by the verb 'screen'.

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