get_tailored_cv

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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the config controls section ordering, entry emphasis with omit semantics, profile override, and page budget, and the tool returns source code rather than a compiled artifact.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing and free of repetition. The primary action, format options, config behavior, return type, and usage context are covered without a wasted word.

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 tool is a two-parameter generation tool with an output schema, annotations, and a focused description. It identifies the required parameter schema, format choices, key config semantics, and intended workflow; the only minor gap is that the full TailoringSpec schema must be resolved externally from the reference in the parameter description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains what tailoring_config controls (section ordering, emphasis, profile override) and the parameter description contributes weight semantics (0-2, 0=omit) and page budget. This exceeds the schema baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a tailored CV from a TailoringSpec in LaTeX or Typst format.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_cv and summarize_cv by naming the specialized output (compilable source code) and tailoring behavior.

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 closing sentence gives explicit usage context: 'Use this tool after analyzing a job description to produce a targeted CV.' It does not enumerate when not to use alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the placement guidance is unambiguous.

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