ats_score_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool combines scores, computes an optional delta, and outputs a ScoreReport with tier. However, it does not explain how the 'screener_readiness tier' is determined or whether the operation is read-only (likely safe).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately explains the inputs and mentions key output elements (ScoreReport, tier, delta). However, it omits details about the tier logic and delta computation, which would be useful for understanding the report.

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 has 100% coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context by noting that 'before' is a dict before optimisation and that 'after' is for delta, providing a higher-level explanation that aids understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Generate a before/after score report' and lists the components (parsability score, match score, redflag count) that are combined into a ScoreReport with tier and delta. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like ats_parse_sim or ats_redflag_scan.

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 implies usage when before data exists and optionally after data for delta, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as separately using parsers or redflag scans.

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