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

Adds cost information ('2 credits') not present in annotations. Describes return structure ('AI response with optional edit suggestions, source citations, and a conversation_id') despite absence of output schema. Explains stateful conversation threading behavior, complementing the idempotentHint=false annotation. Does not disclose rate limits or error behaviors.

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 dense sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers action, cost, and prerequisites. Second sentence covers return values and threading logic. Information is front-loaded and structured logically.

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 conversational tool without output schema, description comprehensively covers: cost, prerequisites, return value structure, and conversation state management. Given the complexity of threading and credit consumption, this is sufficiently 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?

While schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), description adds valuable context: specifies exact sibling tools to obtain cv_version_id, and explains the conversation_id lifecycle (omitting starts new, including continues thread). This operational context exceeds the schema's static definitions.

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?

Specific verb (Send) + resource (message to CeeVee AI) + scope (CV optimization guidance) clearly stated. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying domain (CV optimization vs analysis/review functions in other ceevee_* tools).

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?

Excellent prerequisite guidance ('Requires a cv_version_id') with explicit pointer to getter tools (ceevee_upload_cv or ceevee_list_versions). Clear threading instructions (omit vs include conversation_id). Lacks explicit comparison to similar chat tools (e.g., atlas_advisor_chat) but context implies CV-specific use case.

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