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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the copy is generated in the background, requires a paid plan, consumes no application credits, repeat calls are idempotent and non-billing, rate limited to 10 calls/minute, and an explicit 'never invent candidate facts' guardrail. It also tells the agent to poll again after ~a minute, which the annotations do not convey.

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 purpose and plan constraints, then behavior, then retry protocol and limits. Dense but each sentence carries usable information; phrasing is slightly run-on in places.

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, billable, rate-limited mutation tool, it covers preconditions, credit/payment implications, polling behavior, idempotency, and return shape (Studio link and quality delta). With an output schema present, it appropriately does not over-explain return values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single listing_id param, but the description compensates by explaining it must be an active listing and that reusing the same listing_id is what makes the call a no-charge repeat. Minor gaps remain on format, but the semantics are largely carried.

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 precise verb+resource: tailoring the member's existing resume to one active listing and saving the copy. This clearly separates it from sibling write tools like upload_resume (adds a new resume) and apply_to_job (uses the resume rather than producing it).

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 strong situational guidance: only when the member requests it, requires a paid plan, and note that repeat calls with the same listing_id are free rather than duplicated. It does not explicitly name or exclude sibling alternatives, so it stops short of the top bar.

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