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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only summary metadata is returned, not full documents, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination behavior or what a partial result looks like, so it adds modest value on top of the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the tool's own scope stated before the alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the missing pieces are the meaning of 'selected' and any hint about pagination/result shape. Adequate to call the tool, but not complete.

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%, and the description never mentions 'limit' or 'cursor'. Both parameters are pagination controls with min/max and regex constraints an agent cannot infer intent from; the description must compensate and does not.

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+resource ('List summary metadata for selected resumes') and distinguishes itself from get_resume in the same breath. The qualifier 'selected resumes only' is a meaningful scope restriction, though 'selected' is never defined (user-selected? filtered set?), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_resume when the user wants to read or change a document.' That is a clear use/don't-use boundary against the most confusable sibling. It does not address the other list-style siblings (list_resume_versions, list_templates), so it stops short of a 5.

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