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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "Never modifies anything" merely reinforces them. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: unconfirmed facts are suggestions rather than permission or truth, and the response includes usage/plan limits the agent should respect.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the contents enumeration followed by the usage cue and the caution about unconfirmed facts. The enumeration is long but each listed item is a distinct returned field, so nothing is padding.

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-format details are unnecessary, and the description still previews what is returned. Combined with the usage cue and the caution about unconfirmed facts, 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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

Names a specific verb (Read) and precisely enumerates the resource contents returned: career preferences, saved facts, completeness, plan, remaining usage, resumes, and the client send grant. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_profile, upload_resume, and get_application.

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?

"Use before suggesting profile edits or paid actions" gives an explicit triggering condition and implicitly routes the agent to update_profile for edits. It lacks an explicit when-not statement or named alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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