score_resume_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses analysis and return of scores/suggestions, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or if it requires a specific resume context.

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 efficiently structured: a concise intro, bullet points for evaluation areas, and separate Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 simple schema and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. However, it lacks context about which resume is analyzed (e.g., the current one) and prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 only parameter, 'keywords', is described in the Args section as 'Optional list of keywords to match (from job description)', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title. With 0% schema coverage, this description compensates well.

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 analyzes resume quality with detailed scoring, listing specific criteria like bullet quality and ATS compatibility. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., generate_resume, get_resume_data) as an analytical tool, though it could more explicitly state it scores an existing resume.

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 explains what the tool evaluates but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider instead.

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