check_qualification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns CV and job requirements 'side by side for analysis,' but lacks details on failure cases (e.g., no saved CV, invalid job ID) or output format. It does not contradict annotations as none exist.

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 concise sentences covering action, return, and prerequisite with no fluff. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, return, and prerequisite. However, it could be more explicit about the return structure to aid the agent in processing the output.

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 100% (the schema already defines 'job_id' as 'Job ID (MatchedObjectId from search results)'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('compare your saved CV against a specific job posting') and the resource (CV and job requirements). It distinguishes from siblings like compare_jobs (which compares two jobs) and get_cv (which only retrieves the CV).

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 specifies a prerequisite ('Requires a saved CV'), which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like compare_jobs.

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