jobsmith_check

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 usefully discloses that no API key is required, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about what the check returns, whether it is deterministic, or whether it is a pure read. For a simple analysis tool that is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource; the auth note follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a one-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description does not hint at the shape of results (pass/fail, rule violations, scores). Its only added information is the no-key note, so it is minimally complete rather than fully so.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, and the schema already documents 'The CV or cover-letter text to check'. The description restates that it operates 'over a piece of text' without adding format, length, or input constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('JobSmith's CV / cover-letter quality rules over a piece of text'), so an agent knows exactly what computation happens. It stops short of naming or contrasting with the sibling jobsmith_rules, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 context (you have CV or cover-letter text you want evaluated against JobSmith rules), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to jobsmith_rules or language/readability siblings that also analyze text.

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