gap_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' merely echoes that. The real value is the disclosed response shape: five named buckets with the prescribed action for each (add via unused_bullets, treat as familiarity only, do not claim, ask for an achievement, ask where it was used), which no annotation or schema conveys. It stops short of describing ordering, size, or how counts are derived.

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?

One dense paragraph, but front-loaded: purpose first, then usage and ordering, then the return-value breakdown. Every clause carries information, though the bucket list makes it long and could have been structured as a short list for faster scanning.

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 burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly for all five result groups plus their intended follow-up actions. Combined with the explicit workflow placement, an agent has everything needed to call and act on the result.

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 five parameters (variant, keywords, preferred, profile, lang) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect hints, such as keywords being the job post's own wording and the mention of `unused_bullets` as a source, which does not go beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource: 'Explain the keywords a job post asks for that one variant doesn't show', with the grouping dimension ('by what can honestly be done') that makes the output meaningful. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like score_job, save_variant and check_claims.

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 explicit sequencing: 'Use it after score_job picked the variant, before editing it with save_variant.' This places the tool in the workflow between two named siblings, so an agent knows exactly when it applies and when it is premature or too late.

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