careers_materials

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by revealing the item_id dependency for detail views and the boundary that downloads are handled elsewhere. It also reinforces the read-only nature, consistent with annotations. It does not need to re-state safety traits the annotations already provide.

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, purposeful sentences: purpose, detail-view requirement, and routing/exclusions. Information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need description. The description covers how to list, how to get details, and where downloads belong. Given the read-only annotations and simple parameter set, nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most important parameter relationships: it maps view to document/résumé-book lists and details, and explains that item_id must come from a preceding list call. It does not explain limit/offset, but those are conventional pagination parameters. The enum values are self-explanatory once the description clarifies singular vs. plural.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read existing application documents or résumé books.' This clearly distinguishes careers_materials from sibling tools like careers_jobs and careers_download. It also specifies that detail views require an item_id from a list, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly routes downloads to careers_download ('Downloads use careers_download') and states what the tool does not do ('no uploads or book registrations'). It also explains the list-then-detail workflow: 'Detail views require an item_id returned by their list.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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