search_resumes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure — and it delivers: it states the required credential type and the concrete failure mode (403 for applicant/anonymous tokens. It doesn't cover rate limits or response-shaping behavior (the compact-summary vs raw distinction lives in the schema), but the disclosed access-control trait adds real behavioral value beyond the action itself.

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 zero waste: the purpose and filter scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the high-value access constraint and 403 warning. Every word earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the operation scope, all parameters, and the access gate. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit routing to alternatives (e.g., get_resume for fetching a single resume), but nothing an agent needs to avoid a failed call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 8 parameters. The description's filter list (keywords, region, professional role, salary, experience) maps onto text/area/professional_role/salary/experience but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search candidate resumes') and enumerates the filter dimensions (keywords, region, professional role, salary, experience). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vacancies and search_employers without needing to open any schemas.

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 when the tool is usable: it requires an EMPLOYER OAuth token (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) plus a paid resume-database subscription, and warns that applicant/anonymous tokens fail with 403. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the resource (resumes vs vacancies) plus the access gate provide solid operational guidance.

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