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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context on top: the 'not_found' error condition for a missing or non-owned resume, and the fact that it 'creates nothing and spends nothing.' It stops short of describing pagination or the full return shape.

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: the first front-loads the action and what is returned, the second handles the alternatives and the error case. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still flags the meaningful error return ('not_found'). Combined with the sibling routing and the read-only framing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

The description does not itself discuss resume_id, but the parameter is documented in the schema as 'Resume id, as returned by list_resumes.' With a single well-described parameter, the schema carries the semantic load, which lands at the baseline 3.

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) plus resource (a resume's public share link) and enumerates the returned scope: whether a link is open, its address, and which file version it shows. It distinguishes itself from the sibling mutation tools share_resume_link and close_resume_link by name.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool only reads, share_resume_link creates/updates, and close_resume_link closes. The when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are both spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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