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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses the result cap (up to 12), the default-style filtering semantics and the exact per-item fields returned. It does not mention permissions or latency, but those are minor for a read-only catalog lookup.

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 short sentences and a sentence fragment, front-loaded with purpose followed by the filter dimensions and the return shape. Each sentence carries content; only the opening fragment is slightly awkward in construction.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the cap. All three parameters are optional, keeping the call simple, but the default limit value is unexplained.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does so for style by naming all four enumeration values and for withPhoto by explaining the with/without distinction; it also implies the 12-item ceiling for limit, though the default of 6 is never explained.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (CV Chap Chap designs) and enumerates the filter dimensions (style, photo) plus returned fields. It is clearly a read/list operation, distinct from check_cv, save_cv_draft and search_jobs.

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?

"For a person choosing how their CV should look" gives a clear situational trigger for when to call this tool. However, it does not state exclusions or point to the closest alternative, such as get_cv_format_guide for format rules rather than design browsing.

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