Analyze a job

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it creates a tracked application, returns its number, computes ORIGINAL scores, and avoids inventing unverifiable requirements. It does not however describe error behavior when the master resume/profile is absent or what exactly happens to previous analysis data.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then outputs, side effect, and next step. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information with no filler.

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 covers purpose, side effects, and the returned application number, which is enough to invoke the tool. Without an output schema, it leaves the full response shape of scores and extracted data implicit, and it assumes the master resume and profile already exist without stating that prerequisite.

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 only 40%, so the description had to compensate for undocumented parameters. It highlights pasting the description but adds no guidance for title, company, location, or url beyond their obvious names, and does not explain how optional metadata affects the analysis.

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?

Description states a specific action ('analyze it against the master resume + profile') and enumerates concrete outputs: extraction, ATS/match scores, missing keywords, buried experience, weak bullets, and unverifiable requirements. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the next step (optimize_resume_for_job) and by targeting job analysis rather than resume analysis.

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?

Describes this as 'Phase 1' and explicitly says to follow with optimize_resume_for_job, giving clear workflow sequencing. It does not explicitly state when to prefer analyze_master_resume or to first upload/setup the master resume/profile, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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