assess_candidate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld. The description adds behavioral context: returns per-axis scores and decision, and supports multiple criteria axes. No contradictions, and it provides value beyond 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 action and output, no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 nested criteria and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, inputs, and outputs. It could mention more about the criteria structure, but the schema fills that gap.

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 has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter docs. The description reiterates the criteria axes but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool assesses a resume against recruiter-defined criteria, lists 8 specific axes, and mentions outputs like per-axis scores and decision. It distinguishes from siblings like parse_resume or analyze_resume_comprehensive by focusing on structured criteria evaluation.

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?

Implied usage for custom criteria assessment, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., analyze_resume_comprehensive) or when not to use. The description lacks exclusion criteria or comparative context.

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