Generate a resume tailored to a specific job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It covers the process, return values, and cost implications. Could add more on persistence or side effects, but this is a generation tool and the main behaviors are disclosed.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose, outputs, and usage caveat. No fluff, and the heaviest-tool warning is placed at the end, allowing the front-load to establish what the tool does.

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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately explains return values (JSON, ATS score, preview link). It lacks a note on prerequisite steps like using extract_resume_text first, but the required param makes that obvious and the use-case is fully described.

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 baseline is 3. The description underscores that resumeText and jdText feed the analysis/rewrite, but adds nothing about templateId or targetLanguage beyond the schema. Acceptable, but not additive.

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 action (full pipeline: analyze, structure, rewrite) with concrete outcomes, distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_job_description or ats_check. Clearly positions this as the complete tailoring tool.

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?

Gives clear context: run once the user has settled on a target job, and warns it is the heaviest tool due to credit usage. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the timing guidance is strong.

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