search_resumes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and the 403 outcome, and hints at a raw vs compact response via the 'raw' parameter. However, it does not describe the compact summary format, pagination behavior, or any other side effects. The added details are useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose and criteria, the second lists the access requirements. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

As an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers authorization and the raw flag, but does not explain the default compact response, pagination semantics, or potential error scenarios beyond 403. While the essential callable information is present, more detail on response behavior would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the search criteria, which map directly to the parameters, and adds a useful pointer that professional_role IDs come from get_professional_roles. This adds slight value but does not substantially elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Search candidate resumes by' and enumerates specific search criteria (keywords, region, professional role, salary, experience). This clearly defines the verb, resource, and scope, and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vacancies and get_resume.

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 specifies a critical usage prerequisite: requires an EMPLOYER OAuth token and a paid subscription, and notes that applicant/anonymous tokens get 403. This is practical guidance for when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the token requirement.

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