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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds real behavior beyond them: the URL lives for 60 minutes (expires_at), it is the user's private copy that creates no public link, and it enumerates the two failure statuses plus the meaning of is_current.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition before branching into alternatives and status codes. Dense but each clause carries distinct information; the parenthetical status explanations are tightly integrated rather than padded.

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, so return structure needn't be documented, yet the description still explains the key status values and the is_current flag. Combined with the private-vs-public distinction and expiry, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

There is a single parameter (resume_id) whose meaning is already carried by the schema field description ('Resume id, as returned by list_resumes'). The tool description adds no additional semantics for it, so with only one param this lands at the 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 and resource ('Get the latest downloaded PDF of a resume') and immediately defines what the artifact contains (file name, pages, made date, URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming share_resume_link and export_resume_pdf, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use share_resume_link to make a link for other people, and export_resume_pdf when no download exists yet. It also defines the exact conditions producing 'not_generated' and 'not_found', which is the when-not guidance most tools lack.

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