Resume parsing

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail not present in annotations: it costs credits from the account wallet. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (non-read-only) and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the input is retained, how long processing takes, or any side effects beyond the credit cost. Given the annotations cover the basic safety profile, the cost disclosure is a useful addition but the description is still thin on behavior.

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 (with a colon) plus a short cost note. It front-loads the primary purpose and output fields, making the core function immediately visible. The grammar is slightly awkward ('A resume or CV into...'), but the text is efficient and has no filler. It earns a 4 for being concise and well-structured, losing a point for the grammatical flaw.

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 lists the output fields (contact, skills, experience, education, links), which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not mention that the tool accepts three mutually exclusive input sources (text, fileUrl, fileBase64) or that at least one is needed – the schema marks all as optional, so an agent might not know to supply one. It also does not mention any error handling or limitations. The credit cost is disclosed, which is a plus. Overall, the description covers the 'what' but misses the 'how to invoke correctly' in terms of input selection, making it incomplete for a tool with no required parameters and no output schema.

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% – all four parameters (text, fileUrl, fileBase64, fileMimeType) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, such as when to prefer text over fileUrl or how they interact. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to repeat that, but it also doesn't add clarifying notes (e.g., 'exactly one of text, fileUrl, or fileBase64 should be provided'). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing beyond it.

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 resource (resume/CV) and the output (structured candidate profile with contact, skills, experience, education, links). It implicitly indicates a parsing/transformation action, though the missing explicit verb ('parse' or 'convert') and the awkward phrasing 'A resume or CV into...' slightly reduce clarity. It differentiates from generic siblings like parserail_parse or parserail_extract by being resume-specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose between parserail_resume and other parsing tools like parserail_parse, parserail_extract, or parserail_structure. The only hint is the resume-specific output, but no explicit 'use this when...' guidance.

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