Gap analysis against a posting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses that the tool is read-only, writes nothing, and changes nothing, plus what it returns. It could add prerequisites or auth notes, but for a non-mutating analysis tool this is solid.

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-sentence description, front-loads read-only nature and outputs, ends with actionable next step. No redundant words.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and outputs but leaves 'variant' unexplained and is vague about where the existing facts come from. It's usable but not fully complete.

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 already explains job_description and limit, but description adds no parameter-level meaning and completely ignores 'variant', which has no schema description. At 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter but doesn't.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('gap analysis') with a clear resource ('against a posting') and enumerates exact outputs (matched keywords, missing ones, coverage figure, orderings). It differentiates from siblings like resume_create by framing itself as the read-only analysis step, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 gives a clear workflow context: perform gap analysis, then act with resume_create. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling reference makes intended usage evident.

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