score_version

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (per-job score, must-haves met, gaps, per-requirement verdicts with quotes) and an important semantic about gap_notes being guardrail-confirmed gaps, but says nothing about side effects, cost, or that it dispatches to an external scoring backend.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose then returns then a caveat; every sentence adds information. The first sentence is slightly overloaded with parenthetical defaults, which costs a point.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does describe the return payload, which is valuable. However, for a tool with no annotations and a 0%-documented schema, gaps remain around the backend parameter and operational behavior (cost, side effects, prerequisites).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that postings are file paths and default to the version's posting, but never mentions the backend parameter or clarifies the version parameter's role, leaving one of three parameters completely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Score the built resume against job postings') and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like build_version and check_facts. The scope ('the built resume', 'with shortlist-ai') makes clear what is scored and by what.

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?

Usage context is only implied: 'the built resume' hints that build_version should run first, and the postings default implies a version must exist. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., check_facts) and no stated exclusions or preconditions.

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