search_resumes_by_skills

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

With no annotations, the description only lists result fields. It does not disclose read-only nature, authorization needs, or side effects, leaving major behavioral 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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and behavior, second lists output fields. No waste or redundancy.

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?

Covers basic purpose and output but omits pagination, limits, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Both parameters are well-described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, earning the baseline score.

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 verb (Find), resource (resumes), and criterion (specific skills), and references the matching behavior from a sibling tool, making it highly 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?

It mentions using the same matching as search_resumes_by_skill, which gives context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like other resume search tools.

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