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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: result ordering (newest first), the fields each item carries, that counts are included, and that contact details are omitted — a useful privacy boundary. It stops short of describing pagination behavior despite cursor/limit parameters.

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?

A single compact passage that front-loads what is returned before listing filters; every clause carries information. Slightly run-on phrasing ("its CVEmber score and downloadable") costs a bit of polish.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers return shape, ordering, filtering, and a privacy boundary. The main omission is pagination semantics (how cursor/limit interact across pages), which the schema only partially carries.

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 80%, so the schema already documents role, since, cursor, and search. The description restates the three filter parameters without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and says nothing about limit or cursor paging. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete resource and scope: base resumes plus tailored versions, sorted newest first, with named fields, score, and counts. It is clearly a listing tool distinct from get_resume, but it never names a sibling or states the exclusion explicitly, relying on the reader to infer the difference.

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?

"Filter by role, search or since" implies when the filters apply, but there is no statement of when to call this versus get_resume or list_templates, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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