Render final resume files

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the validation gate, the refusal condition for placeholders, and the extra return payload (LinkedIn alignment suggestions and optional ATS score). Since the annotations only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, this behavioral detail is valuable and non-contradictory.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, refusal behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds operational 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?

For a tool with complex nested inputs and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, failure conditions, and return content. It could mention file naming, output_dir behavior, or the default formats, but those are already present in the schema and not essential for correct selection and 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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, but the description adds important semantics: candidate_approved is a required gate, jd_text triggers the final ATS score, and a 'valid LinkedIn URL' imposes a stricter requirement than the schema's plain string type. This goes beyond what the input schema alone conveys.

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 a specific verb ('Renders') with a specific resource ('the approved resume') and clearly names the output formats (DOCX / PDF / Markdown / TXT). This makes the tool's role obvious and distinguishes it from sibling analysis/scoring tools like score_resume or analyze_gaps, which do not produce final files.

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 gives clear usage context by stating the hard prerequisites: candidate_approved=true, a valid LinkedIn URL, and no placeholder metrics like [N]. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the 'approved' and 'final' framing strongly implies this is the last step after other tools have prepared the resume.

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