start_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: idempotency with reused=true and no quota consumption, the 5-daily-scan allowance, single in-flight constraint, server-side random 2-5 s delays, and per-error retry semantics. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the core action and idempotency come first, then constraints, then polling and error guidance. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the error-policy sentence is packed tightly enough to be a little heavy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema already present, the description still supplies what the schema cannot: quota, idempotency, concurrency, pacing, and the exact poll interval. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents resume_path thoroughly (absolute path, text-based .pdf/.docx, max 5 MB) and ties job_description/job_title/company to the idempotency key, but it never explains what scoring_guide values are valid beyond the default. It covers the non-obvious parameters well and leaves only the self-evident ones implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a resume + job description and start a scan') and distinguishes itself from the polling sibling by naming get_scan_status explicitly. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus list_scans or get_scan_feedback.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Then poll get_scan_status no more often than every 20 s', 'Only one scan may be in flight', 'limit_reached means stop for the day', and 'never call tools in parallel'. It also gives a concrete retry policy and lists which errors must not be retried blindly.

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