Parse a resume

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes further by disclosing the credit cost, the file size limit, and the accepted formats. It still does not cover authentication requirements, failure behavior, or what happens to the uploaded file by default, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose and output shape front-loaded, followed by the input modes and cost. The long format list is necessary information, not padding.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the structured fields and info_resume.text. Formats, size, cost and input modes are covered; error behavior and default storage semantics are the only notable omissions.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the file_path-vs-file_url choice and names one output field, but adds no format or syntax detail for application_id or do_not_store_data beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (parse) and resource (resume) and enumerates the exact output: contact details, work experience, education, languages, skills, and full text in info_resume.text. No sibling tool overlaps with resume parsing, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives clear operating context: accepts either a local file_path or a public file_url, lists supported formats, and states the 4.5 MB ceiling and 1-credit cost. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the usage conditions are explicit enough to act on.

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