Write a cover letter .docx

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states the file is written, what is returned, that posting content is never restated as the user's, and the free quota of 3/month. It does not cover failure modes like overwrite conflicts, but those are exposed through the input schema.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core behavior and return values are front-loaded, and the critical guardrail and quota are stated concisely in the following sentences.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description includes the core behavior, outputs, the source data, a critical privacy/accuracy constraint, and a usage limit. An agent can reasonably predict the tool's behavior and invoke it successfully.

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 63%, and the description adds semantic context for the less obvious parameters: job_description is only used to select skills and never copied as facts, and highlights that cannot be verified surface as bracketed prompts. The basic fields (role, company, tone) are self-explanatory and mostly covered by 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 starts with a specific action, 'write a one-page cover letter .docx', and names the data source and return values ('path, word count and bracketed prompts'). This cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like resume_create and tailor_to_job.

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?

'Call this tool to write...' clearly indicates when the tool should be invoked, and the one-page cover-letter scope makes it distinct from resume-related siblings. The description does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives, so it is clear but not fully contrastive.

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