Get targeted resume improvement suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape ('Each suggestion has a type, priority, tip, and an example rewrite'), prioritization, and that it returns suggestions rather than modifying the resume. It doesn't mention limits or potential errors, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the cross-tool integration instruction is concise and actionable.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value structure. The input parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the description adds the only missing context: how to source optional keyword parameters. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that missingMustHave / missingNiceToHave come from analyze_job_description and should be passed to close keyword gaps, clarifying the purpose and origin of those parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return prioritized, rewrite-level suggestions for a resume') and clarifies optional role-targeting, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_job_description (analysis), tailor_resume (actual rewriting), and roast_resume (critique).

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 clear context for optional inputs ('optionally aimed at a specific role or job description') and explicitly instructs to pass missingMustHave / missingNiceToHave from analyze_job_description to close keyword gaps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the cross-tool integration guidance is strong.

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