civify_score_ats

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how the score is returned, or whether the structural audit has side effects; the only extra context is that a full JD is not required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of the sentence adds useful information: the action, the two outputs, and the key condition for using the tool.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main usage condition. It omits details about the score format and what the structural audit includes, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'resume_id' is fully documented in the schema as the UUID of an existing resume. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Calculate') and two concrete outputs ('general ATS compatibility score and structural audit'), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings by name, though the 'without needing a full JD' clause implies a contrast with tools that do require one.

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 phrase 'without needing a full JD' gives an implied usage condition: use this when the full job description is unavailable. However, it does not name alternatives, state when not to use it, or explain what to do if a JD is available.

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