cover_letter_generator

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: output shape ('structured paragraphs with in-line citation markers') and a hard grounding constraint against unverified content, which is the key risk an agent should know about for a generation tool. Required permissions for company facts remain unstated.

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 tight sentences with the grounding constraint front-loaded and the return format second. Each sentence earns its place, especially the return-format line since there is no output schema. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 generation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter documentation, the description covers output format and grounding well but omits the tone parameter's effect, the ordering dependency on evidence_validator/company_research, and expected behavior when matched_skills is thin. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 only 50%, so the description must carry more weight. It constrains two parameters conceptually — matched_skills ('verified skills') and approved_company_facts ('approved company research') — but does not explain the tone parameter's effect, the shape of matched_skills objects, or which of the 6 parameters are required versus optional. Baseline 3 given partial 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?

Names a specific verb (Generate) and resource (cover letter), plus a scope qualifier ('evidence-grounded', 'strictly bounded by verified skills and approved company research') that separates it from siblings like evidence_validator and company_research. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the constraint rather than stated.

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 phrase 'strictly bounded by candidate's verified skills and approved company research' implies the prerequisites (validation and research must happen first), which is useful implicit routing. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative tool, so the agent must infer the workflow ordering.

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