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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — the result spans all available history with no filtering — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or latency for what could be a large unbounded read.

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 purpose, which is good. But "over the service's available history" and "There is no date-range filter" restate the same fact, and "Returns: resume viewing statistics" is near-tautological given an output schema exists.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and a single fully-documented optional parameter, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the unbounded-history result volume is left implicit.

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 100% and the resumeId property already documents the omit-when-single-item behavior thoroughly. The description contributes nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ("Show recorded view statistics for a saved resume") with an explicit scope ("over the service's available history"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_item, list_items, or summarize_resume, though it never names an alternative to reinforce that.

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 only usage guidance is the negative constraint "There is no date-range filter," which tells the agent it cannot scope the query but not when to prefer this tool over get_item or list_items. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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