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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: English-only output regardless of resume language, no quota, and a 'not_found' error for missing or non-owned resumes. Ownership and error semantics are exactly the kind of thing annotations can't express.

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?

Purpose and output shape are front-loaded, followed by disambiguation and error behavior. Every clause earns its place, though the quota/get_usage aside is a slight tangent that adds density.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description still conveys ordering ('highest-impact first'), tagging (section + priority), language behavior, quota status, and the not_found case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (resume_id) and the description adds little beyond 'by id'; the schema itself already documents it as 'Resume id, as returned by list_resumes'. With 0% description coverage but a self-evident single param, this is the minimum-viable 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+resource+scope: 'Get a prioritized list of concrete improvements for a resume by id'. It also distinguishes itself from score_resume (numeric assessment) and request_vacancy_resume_suggestions, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 names alternatives and the condition selecting them: 'score_resume gives the numeric assessment' and 'the resume_suggestions action in get_usage belongs to request_vacancy_resume_suggestions'. This tells the agent both when to use this tool and when a sibling is the right call.

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