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

Annotations only say it is non-read-only, open-world and non-idempotent; the description adds the crucial behavioral facts an agent cannot infer: nothing is sent automatically, a human (Brahim) reads and replies by email usually same-day, and the tool is rate-limited to a few requests per day.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the human/async consequence, then the gating condition. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the post-call behavior, and rate limits well. The only gap is the undocumented optional fields (lang, company, message), which is a minor omission given they are optional.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, four of six parameters (lang, company, message, role) lack descriptions in either place. The description does add one piece of real meaning beyond the schema — that name and email must be the requester's own, not a third party's — but it does not compensate for the undocumented remaining fields.

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 ('File a request for Brahim's full CV') and grounds it in a concrete referent (the form at heybrahim.com/cv.html). It is immediately distinguishable from the CRUD-like siblings (get_item, list_items, search), which handle different resources entirely.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and prerequisite: 'Only call this when the user explicitly asked for the CV and gave their own name and email.' No alternatives are named, but the sibling tools are not substitutes for this action, so the routing guidance is effectively complete.

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