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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool runs 'pure computation, no AI call' and that 'the resume is never stored,' giving the agent essential safety and cost context. It also details what the tool produces, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

The description is two sentences long. The first sentence lists the full set of outputs in a compact, structured way, while the second adds usage and safety context. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, output categories, usage timing, and operational details (server-side computation, no storage). It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the single 'markdown' parameter ('The full resume as Markdown text'). The tool description repeats this by saying 'Markdown resume' but does not add deeper semantics such as formatting requirements or edge cases, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's core action: 'Score a Markdown resume 0-100' and enumerates the specific outputs (readability metrics, keyword findings, missing-section checks, recommendations). This distinguishes it from siblings like render_resume_pdf or list_resume_templates, which serve different purposes.

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 description explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use it to review a draft before handing it to the user, then apply the recommendations.' It provides a clear usage context but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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