ATS scan resume against job posting

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals substantial behavioral detail: it computes a 0-100 score, flags matched and missing skills with importance levels, checks title/education/years-of-experience fit, runs searchability/formatting checks, and returns suggestions. This gives an agent a solid model of what will happen when invoked.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first packs in the action, scope, and deliverable list; the second adds a direct usage tip. Every phrase contributes value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers the full scope of behavior without requiring an output schema: scoring, skill matching, fit checks, formatting/searchability checks, and suggestions. Combined with complete schema descriptions and the readOnlyHint annotation, an agent has enough context to select and 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly, making 3 the baseline. The description adds one meaningful workflow hint about using resume_text for re-scoring, but most parameter meaning is adequately carried by the schema itself.

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+resource ('Scores a resume against a job posting') and immediately identifies the tool as a 'Jobscan-style ATS scan', clearly differentiating it from siblings like parse_resume, list_resumes, and compare_resumes. The listed concrete outputs (match rate, missing skills, fit checks, suggestions) leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly establishes the core use case: scan a resume against a specific job posting. It also gives a concrete workflow pointer ('Use resume_text to re-score a draft after edits'), showing when the resume_text parameter is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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