Get a blunt recruiter-style critique of a resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It discloses the output type (shareable public report URL) and the tone of the feedback, but does not mention side effects such as external processing, data retention, or privacy implications of producing a public link.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The main action and output are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed at the end effectively.

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 only two parameters, one required, the description covers the purpose, output contents, and returned artifact (public shareable URL). Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the caller will receive, though privacy details remain implicit.

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 fully explains resumeText and jobTitle. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Run the MatchCV resume roast') and clarifies what it produces: a blunt recruiter reaction and an ATS score. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the candid-versus-polite phrasing helps distinguish it from more diplomatic resume tools.

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 final sentence gives an explicit usage condition: use this tool when the user wants candid feedback rather than a polite checklist. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stays one level below the strongest guidance.

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