Parse resume the way an ATS would

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior needs disclosure. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what the parse reveals: sections, contact info, date ranges, bullet stats, warnings, and raw text. This goes beyond the sparse annotation set and sets proper expectations for the output.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists the meaningful output categories. There is no filler, repetition of the title, or irrelevant detail. Every segment contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return content, and it covers the major categories. It also gives usage context for the include_text parameter via the schema. However, it does not clarify precedence or interaction between resume_path and resume_text when both are provided, which would be useful for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and all three parameters have meaningful descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add parameter-level details, but it doesn't need to because the schema already documents resume_path, resume_text, and include_text adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Shows what an ATS extracts') and clearly identifies the resource (a resume). It names several concrete outputs, which makes the tool's function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling 'scan_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 implies the tool is for getting an ATS-style parse and extraction of resume details, but it never states when to choose this over scan_resume or compare_resumes. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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