ingest_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially delivers: 'structures, never embellishes' is a genuinely useful behavioral guarantee about fidelity. However it says nothing about error handling, what happens with malformed input, whether one of the two inputs is preferred, or what the resulting profile contains.

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?

The core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the parenthetical '(Facade addition: the concept's tool list omitted profile loading.)' is internal scaffolding noise that consumes attention without helping the agent act.

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 that produces a 'structured profile' with no output schema, the description should indicate what the profile contains or how it feeds downstream tools; it does not. It is adequate as a one-line statement of intent but leaves the agent under-informed about inputs and outputs.

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?

Both parameters (resume_path, resume_text) have 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions either, nor whether they are mutually exclusive, nor which takes precedence when both are supplied with zero required params. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.

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 and resource ('Parse a plain-text/markdown resume into a structured profile') and adds a scope qualifier ('verbatim — the parser structures, never embellishes'). No sibling tool covers resume parsing, so differentiation is not strictly needed, though the trailing parenthetical about a 'facade addition' muddies what the tool actually does.

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?

No statement of when to invoke this versus other flows (e.g., before search_jobs/match_jobs), no prerequisites, and crucially no guidance on choosing between resume_path and resume_text. The agent must guess the intake path.

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