holland_assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states the tool is free, uses deterministic rule-based calculation, and defines what happens in each mode based on whether answers are provided. It does not discuss partial answer sets, but schema constraints already cover the 60-item limit and score range.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The primary rule is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is stated efficiently.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers how to start, how to complete, and what result format to expect. The only notable gap is explicit handling of incomplete answer sets, but the schema's maxItems constraint partially mitigates this.

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 value by linking the presence or absence of the answers parameter to completely different outputs. It also clarifies that a full submission of 60 answers is what triggers the career code and report.

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 names a specific resource (Holland career interest assessment) and defines a clear two-mode behavior: return 60 questions when answers are absent, or return a three-letter code and full report when 60 answers are submitted. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling resume, interview, and search tools.

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 makes invocation context explicit: call without answers to fetch the question set, call with answers to obtain the scored interpretation. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are in clearly different domains, so no exclusion is strictly necessary.

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