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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; 'Read-only; no signature' aligns with and reinforces that. The description adds genuinely new behavior: pagination with offset/limit defaults (50) and max (200), plus the caller-dependent view semantics.

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 tight sentences with content, read semantics, parameter nuance, and pagination front-loaded in that order. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the claim categories and endorsements. Pagination and caller semantics are also covered, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates pagination defaults and adds a nuance for `caller` ('account whose view to read'), but the schema already describes caller as 'run the query as', so the added meaning is marginal.

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 (Get) and resource (resume) and enumerates the substantive content (expertise, work history, education, good deeds, intellectual property) with endorsements. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_full_details, get_endorsers, and get_matching_claims, which each return narrower slices.

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 description implies read-only usage and explains the `caller` view ('for caller-dependent results'), but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as get_full_details or get_endorsers. No explicit when/when-not routing to alternatives.

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