Check a resume against ATS rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns (four categories of output) and implies a qualitative analysis. It does not disclose performance characteristics, rate limits, or whether the score is deterministic, but for an analysis tool returning a response these gaps are minor; the return contract is clearly described.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs, followed by concrete use cases. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers purpose, use cases, and return contract. It does not describe the output structure beyond the contents, but with no output schema provided, an agent would need to infer format; the score appears to be a number while the issues and strengths are presumably lists. A brief format hint would push this to 5, but the current description is workable.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds context that the resume text should be plain text, and the parameter description goes further, advising to use extract_resume_text first if only a file is available. This is above the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('resume text for applicant tracking system'). It specifies the exact output: a 0-100 score, a recruiter take, prioritized issues with concrete fixes, and detected strengths. It is distinguishable from siblings like extract_resume_text (which appears to be a text extraction step) because it is an analysis of ATS compatibility rather than an extraction.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use for is my resume ATS friendly, why am I not getting interviews, or before tailoring to a specific job.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use them, but the use cases and the sibling extract_resume_text's purpose (referenced in the parameter description) imply the workflow.

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