Review a CV

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

The description discloses useful operational behavior beyond the annotations: it produces two-way scoring and rewrite suggestions, and it is free. The annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description adds no false safety claims, so no 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?

Three short sentences front-load the core behavior, then the tailoring instruction, then the trigger condition. There is no filler or redundancy; 'Free' is the only peripheral detail and is short enough not to hurt.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately signals return content: scores from two perspectives plus fix and rewrite suggestions. It also gives the key usage condition (job posting tailoring). It does not enumerate output format details, but the operation's output is described well enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents every parameter, including the at-least-200-character rule for job_description and the job_url preference, so the description has little to add. 'Pass the job posting' generically maps to job_description/job_url but adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description 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?

The first sentence names the exact action (scores a CV) and differentiates the output from a plain score by describing two distinct review modes: recruiter reading and ATS parsing, plus a list of fixes and rewrites. The trigger phrase 'someone asks how their CV reads or what to change' anchors the domain and separates it from sibling tools like calibrd_cover_letter or calibrd_report.

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?

'Call it when someone asks how their CV reads or what to change' is an explicit trigger condition, and 'Pass the job posting to tailor the review' explains the recommended input context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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