Score a job against a CV

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

Annotations already cover idempotent and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context beyond them: 'Free, no daily cap' addresses rate limits, and the explanation that it both scores the match and evaluates the CV as a recruiter/ATS clarifies what a call actually produces. It does not contradict the readOnly=false annotation (external fetching is implied but harmless).

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core behavior before usage guidance and the sibling alternative. It is slightly long and the third clause ('as a recruiter and as an applicant tracking system read it') is grammatically awkward, but every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 previews the return content: a 0-100 match score, gaps at that level, and customized CV scoring from two perspectives. It also contextualizes external fetching via the job_url parameter in the schema, so an agent knows why openWorld=true is set. It does not detail response structure, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 clearly, including the choice between job_url and job_description. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning; it only reinforces the match/gap intent of the tool, which is the baseline expected when the schema carries the detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scores how well a person's CV matches one job posting (0 to 100)', and adds what output to expect: gaps, recruiter perspective, ATS perspective. It also names the sibling tool it is not ('use calibrd_report for the full read'), so an agent can distinguish it from calibrd_report and the other siblings without opening 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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'Call it when someone asks whether to apply, or to triage several postings'. It also gives an alternative and a follow-up condition: 'use calibrd_report for the full read on the ones that score well'. This is clear routing guidance beyond what annotations or schema provide.

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