Start resume session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned artifacts: the step-by-step playbook, intake checklist (including LinkedIn profile), and ATS formatting rules. This is valuable because there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical usage instruction ('Call this FIRST') and followed by a compact list of what the tool returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter entry-point tool, the description is complete: it states when to call it, what it returns, and what the agent should collect from the candidate. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's explicit enumeration of return contents.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids parameter explanation since none exist; there is nothing missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 and resource: 'Call this FIRST whenever a user wants a resume built, tailored or checked against a job.' It clearly positions this tool as the resume-session entry point and distinguishes it from the sibling analysis steps by stating what it returns (playbook, checklist, ATS rules).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call this FIRST whenever...') and covers all resume-related intents. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as the alternatives for subsequent steps, but the 'FIRST' framing and the mention of a step-by-step playbook strongly imply the usage flow.

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