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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the required profile:read scope, the additional resume:read scope for raw resume text, and the caution that unknown skills or eligibility are not established by saved facts.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded, followed by the attribution caveat and then the auth requirements. Every sentence carries distinct 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 must convey return semantics, and it does so (saved facts with provenance, unknown fields). Auth scopes and the resume caveat round it out; only the single boolean parameter's behavior/default is left unstated.

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?

There is one parameter (include_resume_text) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by noting the raw resume requires resume:read, which implies what the flag exposes, but it never names the parameter or states the default (false).

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: reading saved candidate facts with provenance and unknown fields. It is distinguishable from most siblings (get_job, list_applications) but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related get_account_context, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated content (read saved candidate facts) and the scope prerequisites, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor a named alternative such as get_account_context for account-level data. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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