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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description legitimately adds that it operates against the connected Himalayas account with no extra sign-in. It does not describe failure behavior for an unknown id or id/slug mismatch, but the auth context is genuine added value.

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 tight sentences, no filler, and the core action plus id provenance is front-loaded ahead of the secondary account note.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the id source, and the auth model. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. whether a slug and numeric id behave identically), which is acceptable given the schema carries the parameter types.

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 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents the id as 'Document id or slug' and constrains type to the resume/cover_letter enum. The description reinforces 'by id' and the id's provenance (list_documents) but adds no format or ordering detail for type selection, so it sits at the adequate baseline.

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 (read) and resource (resume or cover letter), scoped to the user's own tailored documents, and explicitly names the source sibling (list_documents). An agent can distinguish this from the plural enumeration tool and from other 'get_*' siblings without opening a schema.

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 parenthetical '(from list_documents)' prescribes the sourcing workflow for the id, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that it only reads documents (not profiles or conversations), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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