Analyze job description

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about what the tool returns (weighted keywords, seniority, years, etc.) without contradicting the annotation. It does not mention limitations or edge cases, but with annotations present this is a minor gap.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before listing outputs. The list is long but every element adds information; slightly more structure would improve scannability.

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 compensates by enumerating the major output categories an agent should expect. It is complete for the core call, though it lacks guidance on ordering relative to sibling resume tools.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'decodes' and identifies the resource (job description), then enumerates a detailed set of outputs that distinguish it from siblings like analyze_gaps or score_resume. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces.

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 use case is implied: call this when a raw job description needs to be parsed into structured resume-matching inputs. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives such as analyze_gaps/score_resume, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names and the output list.

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