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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the locale parameter is currently ignored and that the resume is English-only, preventing an agent from expecting localized output. It also gives the canonical URL as the authoritative source, which is helpful context for a read-only retrieval tool.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and output format, then adds the locale caveat and canonical URL, all of which are directly useful to an agent.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It names the resource, specifies the format and main sections, explains the ignored locale, and provides a canonical URL. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 schema already fully documents the single locale parameter with an enum, default, and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic value by stating that the locale parameter is ignored in practice, which changes the effective behavior and prevents incorrect assumptions based on the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns Sofia Ferro's full resume as a JSON Resume v1.0.0 document, listing the major sections (basics, skills, projects). The word 'full' separates it from sibling tools like get_project and list_projects, which target more granular resume data.

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 description makes it clear this tool is for the complete resume document, which implies it is the right choice when the agent needs overall resume data rather than a single project or contact detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for disambiguation.

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