Score Resume Match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (scoring match) but doesn't disclose what the score means, how it's calculated, whether it's a percentage, a grade, or what the output schema contains. Since there is an output schema, some return details are covered, but the description itself adds little behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and the two inputs. It is concise and free of fluff. It could add a bit more context about the output, but it earns its place as a minimal, clear statement.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and an output schema. The description is adequate for an agent to know what the tool does, but it doesn't explain what the score represents or how to interpret it. Given the output schema exists, the agent can see the return shape, but the description could still clarify the scoring scale or criteria. It's a minimum viable description.

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 both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: scoring how well a resume matches a job description. It uses a specific verb ('score') and identifies the two key resources (resume and job description). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the siblings are clearly different actions (search, track, list), so the purpose is distinct enough.

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 the use case: when you have a resume and a job description and want a match score. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different functions, so an agent can infer when this is appropriate. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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