Score resume against JD (ATS simulation)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true secretarial, so no safety contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals how scoring works (weighted keywords, title alignment, bullet quality, integrity checks) and discloses the optional truth_check behavior when candidate_sources is provided.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences. The first begins with the action and enumerates concrete scoring factors; the second covers the optional truth_check mode and the two supported input forms. No word is wasted, and each sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with nested schemas and no output schema, the description gives the score range and key inputs, and mentions the extra truth_check result. It does not describe the full output structure or breakdown, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly with jd_text plus either resume or resume_text.

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%, and the schema already documents candidate_sources as enabling truth_check and resume_text as supporting plain text. The description mostly restates these facts; it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Scores a resume 0–100 against a JD.' It then names the exact scoring dimensions, making the tool's function unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like analyze_job_description or analyze_gaps, which address different parts of the workflow.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement: you use this when you need an ATS-style resume score against a JD. It provides one conditional instruction ('Pass candidate_sources to get a truth_check') and input format flexibility, but it never explicitly says when not to use it or how to select it over sibling tools.

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