Draft a cover letter

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

Annotations only signal readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'One free draft, then it needs a Calibrd pass; the tool says so and gives the link.' It also explains language behavior based on the posting. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the usage restriction and the paywall behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 content-generation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential trigger, output language, and the free-draft/pass constraint. There is no output schema, but 'drafts a cover letter' sufficiently implies the return. Minor edge cases like non-en/fr postings are not addressed, but they are not critical.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of 'from the person's CV' reinforces cv_text but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Drafts a cover letter for one job from the person's CV, in the posting's language.' This clearly identifies the resource, input, and output, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like calibrd_score_job and calibrd_review_cv.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call it only when the person asks for a cover letter.' It does not enumerate alternatives or detailed exclusions, but the condition is specific enough to guide selection.

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