llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and successfully documents authentication requirements ('Requires scope: ats:write'), cost implications ('Consumes credits'), return structure ('overall score, letter grade, matched/missing keywords'), and internal methodology ('3-pass hybrid analysis'). Lacks only error handling or rate limit details.

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?

Information-dense and well-structured: opens with purpose and methodology, follows with return values, then usage guidance, operational constraints (credits/auth), and finally tool prerequisites. Every sentence adds distinct value beyond the structured fields with zero redundancy.

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?

Excellent completeness given no output schema and no annotations. The description compensates by detailing expected outputs textually, clarifying required scopes, and mapping relationships to sibling tools. Only minor gap is absence of error case documentation or rate limiting information.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting 'Resume as plain text' and 'Job description as plain text.' The description adds workflow context about using upload-job-text for URLs, but per calibration guidelines, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is comprehensive and the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param documentation.

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 immediately states 'Score a resume against a job description for ATS compatibility,' providing a specific verb (Score), clear resources (resume, job description), and domain context (ATS). It distinguishes itself from siblings like job-hunter-run by noting it can be used standalone or as a prerequisite assessment.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('before job-hunter-run to assess resume fit, or standalone'), mentions prerequisites ('Use upload-job-text to parse a job description first if you have a URL'), and warns about resource consumption ('Consumes credits'), giving clear guidance on tool sequencing and alternatives.

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