Prepare tailoring brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists the output components but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, requires any permissions, or has side effects. There is no mention of error conditions or the exact format of returned data beyond general names, leaving ambiguity about what the agent should expect.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the key output components. However, the first sentence is somewhat meta ('Return everything YOU (the host model) need'), which is slightly indirect but still functional. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions output components like 'deterministic JD keyword signals' and 'strict anti-fabrication rules' without explaining their structure or how the agent should use them. The reference to 'TailoredContent JSON' is vague, and the agent may need more detail to correctly produce the required output for render_and_compile.

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 input schema has 5 parameters, but only 40% have descriptions (jobDescription and template). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for the parameters like jobUrl, company, or position. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer their roles from context.

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's purpose: to provide the host model with everything needed to tailor a resume/CV to a job description. It specifies the resource ('tailoring brief') and the verb ('return'), and the inclusion of specific components (master CV, JD signals, rules, schema) distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_master_cv' and 'render_and_compile'.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to get all necessary information for tailoring) and what to do afterwards (call render_and_compile with TailoredContent JSON). It does not, however, mention when not to use it or provide alternatives for other scenarios, but the instruction to use this before rendering is clear.

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