Get Autofill Profile

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses consent gating and stripping of `profile.eeo`, that canonical_identity takes precedence over ATS-parsed values, that answers are for verbatim fill with no inference, and that WOTC/signatures/terms are human-only. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload summary, and most content earns its place, but the EEO/veteran/gender enumeration is extremely dense and reads like field-level documentation rather than tool-selection guidance. It is long enough that key routing information risks being buried.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation coverage of content, the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly, including edge cases (missing county), consent-dependent fields, and identity precedence. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, so the description carries the burden; it explains that supplying `application_id` or `base` adds employment blocks and skills from the selected resume. However it never clarifies what `base` is (base resume id?) or how the two parameters differ, so half the parameter meaning is still implicit.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Read the user's application-form autofill data') and then enumerates the exact payload (profile fields, employment, skills, canonical_identity, EEO) so it is unmistakable against siblings like get_application or get_career_context. The scope is narrow and self-defining, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions ('plus employment blocks and skills from the selected resume when application_id or base is given') and states the operational context ('same feed the Chrome extension's deterministic fill uses, so it supplies real stored values for ATS forms'). It also tells the agent what to do when data is absent ('not guessable', 'left to the user'), though it never names an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not.

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