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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld hints). It discloses async behavior, that the call counts as one action against the user's plan quota, that no cost is incurred when match >=90% (task then says skipped:'high_match'), and specific error returns ('not_found', 'limit_exceeded'). This is exactly the kind of side-effect/cost context an agent needs.

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 purpose, then flows into async/retrieval behavior, cost, and error handling. Dense but every sentence earns its place; minor length given the amount of behavior disclosed.

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 an async request tool with side effects and an output schema present, the description covers initiation, retrieval path, cost model, skip condition, and failure modes comprehensively. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Context signals report 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It references vacancy_id in the polling instruction and ties the operation to 'a vacancy analysis', adding partial meaning, but does not explain format, required validity, or ownership constraints for the parameter itself beyond the error case.

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 (Generate) and resource (structured resume-improvement suggestions) scoped to a vacancy analysis. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like score_resume, get_resume_suggestions, and apply_vacancy_resume_suggestions, which are read or apply operations rather than generation requests.

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?

Gives clear context for use: it runs asynchronously, returns a task_id, and instructs the agent to poll get_vacancy_detail(vacancy_id) and read 'resume_suggestions'. It also notes the web UI path and the skip condition at >=90% match. It lacks an explicit when-not-this-instead-vs-alternative statement, but the operational guidance is strong.

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