ATS keyword report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scores and splits gaps, which implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first covers purpose and output, the second specifies inputs. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description lacks detail on output format (e.g., numerical score, categories). Without an output schema, this is a significant gap. It also does not mention that jobDescription is required or that resumeText and texPath are alternatives, reducing completeness for an agent.

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 description clarifies that only one of resumeText or texPath should be provided, adding meaning beyond the schema. The jobDescription parameter is implied but not explicitly explained. With 67% schema coverage, the description compensates adequately but could describe jobDescription 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 scores resume keyword coverage against a job description and categorizes gaps. The verb 'score' and resource 'resume-job description keyword match' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is distinct enough from related tools like get_master_cv or prepare_tailoring.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or common use cases, which limits the agent's ability to choose correctly among siblings.

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