Run Resume Health Check

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

Annotations only tell us it is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive and open-world; the description adds that the call produces a persisted report that gates downstream tailoring, describes the return contract, and notes that notes score zero and disputes/word bank are web-only. It never states explicitly that repeated calls may create fresh report records, which is the main residual gap for a non-idempotent write.

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 correctly: purpose and parameter semantics come first. But the middle is stuffed with implementation-level detail (ask_kind values, measure_target, alt_question, evidence.no_numbers, language.* wording notes) that an agent needs only after deciding to call, which dilutes scannability.

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, the description usefully summarizes the return object (score, grade, tier, gates, counts, findings) and explains the finding payload. Combined with the gate/409 relationship and the web-only caveat, an agent has enough to call it and interpret results, though permission or cost requirements are unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains that 'kind' selects the domain and that 'key' means a base-resume slug or an application id depending on that value. The enum values themselves come from the schema, but the semantics of the pairing are supplied only here.

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+resource (run the resume health check) and pins the scope with 'JD-independent', which separates it from the JD-based score_ats/compare_ats siblings and from the retrieval-only get_health_report. The two operating modes are named up front.

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 for each mode ('kind' is 'base' -> key is slug; 'application' -> key is application id) and, more valuably, ties the tool to a workflow: create_tailoring_session returns 409 until a current report exists, and 'this call produces that report'. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (get_health_report, waive_health_gate) or saying when not to call it.

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