ats_gap_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It describes the return format (match_score, matched, missing, total_keywords) and states it 'tells the user *concretely* what to add.' However, it does not mention idempotency, permissions, side effects, or rate limits. For a read-like operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two paragraphs plus a line showing the return format. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose. The second paragraph adds context but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity. Overall, it efficiently communicates necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists) and the presence of sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context: it explains inputs, outputs, and usage with extract_keywords. The return format is described in text despite an output schema. It covers the essential information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, but the description adds valuable semantics: it clarifies that resume_text should be 'plain text' and that keywords should be 'the ranked keyword list from extract_keywords.' This goes beyond the schema to guide correct parameter usage.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Compare a CV against job keywords → match score (%) + missing terms.' It clearly identifies the resources (CV/resume and keywords) and the outcome (match score and missing terms). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_keywords by describing its unique value as a 'killer feature' that tells the user exactly what to add.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use: 'Pass the resume as plain text and the ranked keyword list from extract_keywords.' It implies the tool should be used after extract_keywords and before rewriting. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is well-defined.

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