scan_pipeline_resumes

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

The description discloses 'Read-only' (since no annotations are provided) and details the boolean search behavior: keywords (OR), required_keywords (AND), exclude_keywords (NOT with word-boundary matching). This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and matching rules.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a user-facing example, tool positioning, a prerequisite instruction, and a semantic explanation. It is compact with no unnecessary words, though it is slightly dense in one paragraph.

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 the output schema documents return values, the description covers the essential usage guidance, search logic, source scope (resumes in pipelines), and readonly nature. It does not cover all edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for effective selection and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic of OR/AND/NOT for the keyword parameters and the word-boundary matching nuance for exclude_keywords, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 the action ('Search resume text in pipelines for skills and qualifications') and provides example user queries ('find Rust engineers'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'the primary sourcing tool' with boolean search capabilities, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: 'The primary sourcing tool — ~90% of candidate data lives in resumes' and instructs to 'Pass job_ids (list_jobs → get IDs for similar roles)'. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the positioning makes it clear this is the go-to tool for resume search.

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