ats_readiness

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it discloses the four returned checks and, importantly, that the analysis is heuristic rather than a real ATS vendor score. This manages expectations in a way no annotation does.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core promise and the honesty caveat. Every clause carries information, though the disclaimer framing is slightly redundant with the 'heuristic analysis' clause.

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 two-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and its limits, which is what an agent most needs. It stops short of explaining how the checks are computed or whether a pass/fail verdict is issued.

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 both parameters (jd_text, letter_text) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('readiness check') and resource ('ATS'), and enumerates the four checks it returns (keyword coverage, skills, evidence, length). The parenthetical 'NOT a fake score' differentiates it from generic ATS scorers, though it does not name or contrast with its actual sibling tools such as evidence_validator or jd_analyzer.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g. evidence_validator, jd_analyzer) or of prerequisites such as needing a generated letter first. Usage is only weakly implied by the required letter_text/jd_text inputs.

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