Calibrd report on a job

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

Annotations already cover idempotency, read-only vs mutating, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful non-obvious context: 'Free, three a day; a pass removes the cap' and that providing a CV additionally scores it against the job. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 no filler: the first states the core function and outputs, the second conveys the CV-dependent behavior, quota, and usage trigger. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 a tool with no output schema and six parameters, the description captures purpose, output contents, optional CV behavior, quota, and the main use case. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though explicit routing to sibling tools would be stronger.

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 documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds only a mild semantic hint that a CV enables CV-vs-job scoring, which does not meaningfully go beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Builds') and resource ('the full Calibrd report for one job posting'), and lists concrete deliverables: shortlist read, gaps, questions, interview process, and compensation benchmark. The 'full report' framing clearly differentiates it from narrower sibling tools like calibrd_score_job, calibrd_review_cv, and calibrd_cover_letter.

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 when someone wants to prepare for a specific role.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the strongest routing guidance, but the context is clear.

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