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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that every call creates a separate new draft (matching idempotentHint=false), that nothing existing is modified (corroborating destructiveHint=false), and that the returned link expires after 30 days. The privacy framing (private draft, private link) is context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, mutation semantics, duplicate-draft warning, link lifetime. The key constraint (each call creates a new draft) is placed early enough to prevent accidental repeat calls.

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 complex nested-schema write tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (private link), lifetime, and side effects. The remaining gap is minimal guidance on preparing the cv payload or obtaining templateId, which the schema largely supplies.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description adds little parameter detail: it alludes to 'the chosen CV Chap Chap design' for templateId but doesn't say where the id comes from (the schema does, via find_cv_templates), and says nothing about the cv object's required fullName or its sections. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the nested schema carries the structural burden.

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 concrete verb and resource: saves the CV as a new private draft and returns a private link. It is clearly distinguishable from check_cv (validation) and find_cv_templates (design lookup), and the title's vague 'Open the CV' is corrected by the description.

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 who wants to see or keep the CV they wrote in the conversation' gives a clear triggering context, and 'chosen CV Chap Chap design' implies a template must be picked first. It never names the sibling tools (find_cv_templates, check_cv) or states when not to call it, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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