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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive lookup, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds useful scope detail (it is reference guidance, limited to 16 countries), but says nothing about output format, length, or whether the content is static versus localized/updated, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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, front-loaded with the target user and followed by the returned fields, then the coverage limit. The opening 'For a person preparing a CV...' is slightly preamble-like but does earn its place by establishing audience and context; otherwise there is no waste.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by listing the specific sections covered. What remains unstated — the response shape (text vs. structured), language, and depth per section — is minor for a static reference lookup, so it is close to 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%, but the single parameter is a fully enumerated 16-value country list, so valid inputs are self-documenting in the schema. The description only reinforces the enum boundary ('the input list only') rather than adding meaning about the parameter, which is the baseline level.

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 resource (CV writing conventions in a given African country) and enumerates exactly what is returned: length, photo, personal details, education, referees, file format, application method, job sites. That enumeration makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like find_cv_templates (templates) and check_cv (review), without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context ('For a person preparing a CV for a job in a particular African country') and an explicit boundary ('Covers the 16 countries in the input list only'), which tells the agent when the tool is applicable and when it is not. It stops short of naming alternatives, so an agent must infer that template-finding or checking belongs to the sibling tools.

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