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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific return fields and the optional include parameter, which is useful context. However, it doesn't elaborate on behavior like pagination, file size limits, or error conditions. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the resource and action, then lists the return fields and optional extension. No filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 simple read operation with annotations confirming safety and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (including the download URL and optional text content), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result. It does not mention edge cases like missing resumes, but those are unlikely to be critical given the tool's scope.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: both id ('Candidate id or alias') and include ('text_content: add the parsed plain text') are described in the schema. The description reiterates the include effect without adding new meaning. Thus it meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not go beyond.

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 ('Get') and resource ('candidate's primary resume'), and lists the exact fields returned (uuid, download url, file metadata, type). It is clearly distinct from generic file tools like hires_list_candidate_files or hires_download_attachment, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 clearly indicates when to use it – to fetch a candidate's primary resume. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer it is for resume retrieval specifically, not general attachments. No exclusions are stated, but the narrow purpose makes it clear.

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