Compare several resumes against one posting

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is understood to be non-mutating. The description adds behavioral context by stating it scores and ranks resumes, which clarifies expected output behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 description conveys the core behavior: multiple resumes are evaluated against one posting and ranked. Without an output schema, it could be clearer about the exact form of the ranking result, but the description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 low at 33%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that resume_paths are resume files and job_text is the posting text, but it does not explain the optional job_title parameter or provide additional detail about expected formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('scores', 'ranks') and a clear resource ('multiple resume files against the same job posting'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like parse_resume, scan_resume, and extract_job_keywords, which serve different purposes.

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 provides a clear use case: 'useful for picking which variant of a master resume to tailor.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it.

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