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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the locale-independence caveat, useful context, but adds nothing about pagination, ordering, or return shape.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the locale clarification second. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive list tool with an enumerated locale and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it implies the return is template IDs and clarifies the locale scope. Minor gaps remain in how the returned IDs relate to create_resume or export_resume.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does add real meaning: contentLocale refers to resume content language, not the conversation or site language. That disambiguates the single parameter beyond the raw enum values, though no return-format or locale-selection examples are given.

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 (List) plus resource (template IDs) and scopes it to the requested resume content language. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_resumes by the 'templates' resource, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 tells the agent that contentLocale should reflect the resume content language and is independent of the conversation/website language, which implicitly guides parameter selection. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_resumes or when templates are needed at all.

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