Validate candidate intake

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description adds real behavior: it cross-checks current_resume_text against linkedin_profile_text and withholds ready=true until the primary fields are present. It doesn't describe the failure-mode return, but the annotations already cover side-effect safety.

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 with no filler. The validation behavior and the readiness condition are front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaning.

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 15-parameter validation tool with no output schema, it states what is validated, how the cross-check works, and what ready=true means for the broader workflow. It omits the failure return shape, but the explicit ready=true condition covers the essential contract.

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 schema coverage at 67%, the description adds selection logic by identifying which parameters are 'primary' (name, email, phone, location, LinkedIn URL, current resume) and which two fields feed the cross-check. It doesn't clarify the remaining optional parameters, but the schema already documents most of them.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Validates that all primary candidate details are collected' and lists the exact checked fields. It also defines the success signal ('Returns ready=true') and ties it to the resume-generation flow, which clearly separates this validation gate from the sibling tools.

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 context that this is a pre-flight gate before resume generation ('Returns ready=true only when resume generation may proceed'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when to skip it, but the intended position in the workflow is clear.

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