Resolve skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait beyond structured data: 'Costs 1 HireLayer credit,' which lets an agent reason about the price of calling this (and potentially batching). It still says nothing about behavior for unmatched or ambiguous skills.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the cost. Every clause earns its place; no filler or restatement of the name/title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries more of the return-value burden; it states IDs are returned but not the shape of the response (list, confidence, unmatched entries). With only two simple parameters and annotations covering safety, it is close to adequate, but the resolution result semantics remain underspecified for a paid taxonomy-mapping call.

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 baseline is 3: the schema already documents 'text' and the fr/en 'language' enum. The description adds the useful nuance that 'text' accepts anything from a single skill to a full section, but it does not clarify that the 'language' parameter controls the language of the returned labels rather than the input language, and it says nothing about output format beyond 'with their IDs.'

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 (map/resolve) and resource (free-text skills) plus scope (French or English, single skill, compound string, or whole section) and the concrete output (HireLayer taxonomy skills with their IDs). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like parse_resume and match_candidate, which do extraction and matching rather than taxonomy resolution.

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 input scope ('one skill, a compound string or a whole skills section') implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or when-not to use it. An agent could reasonably wonder whether parse_resume or extract_job_criteria is the better first step, and the description does not resolve that.

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