calculate_ats_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output range (0-100%), the input types (resume text and job description), and the comparison action. This makes the tool's behavior clear, though it does not detail any underlying algorithm or edge cases, which is acceptable for a simple calculation tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with two string inputs and a numeric output, the description is complete. It explains the core functionality, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be elaborated. The tool's simplicity and clear purpose mean no additional behavioral context is required.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does this by explicitly stating that resume text is compared against a job description, clarifying the role of each parameter. Although parameter names are self-explanatory, the description reinforces their relationship and intended use.

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 calculates an ATS match percentage score (0-100%) by comparing resume text against a job description. This specific verb and resource set it apart from sibling tools like analyze_resume and suggest_improvements, which likely focus on other aspects.

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 usage contexts: use when you need a numeric ATS match score. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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