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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: some of these facts may not be filled in ("which of them are still missing"), warning the agent that responses can be partial and that it should not assume complete data.

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 dense enumeration followed by one short redirecting sentence, with the "read before..." guidance placed at the end. The field list is long but earns its place because no output schema exists; the phrasing "The facts application forms ask beyond the CV" is slightly indirect but compact.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so field by field, including the missing-values nuance. It omits any indication of how these facts relate to or are updated alongside the CV/profile, but for a read-only getter it is largely sufficient.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The field list it provides is about return content rather than inputs, so it neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 concretely enumerates what the tool returns (address, postcode, phone type, work authorisation, sponsorship, salary expectation, screening answers, plus which are missing), which for a zero-parameter getter effectively states the resource. It stops short of distinguishing itself from closely named siblings such as list_facts_to_provide, get_profile_gaps, and get_my_profile, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"Read before telling the person what an application may be waiting for" implies a use context (answering questions about pending application data), so guidance is present but only implied. No alternatives are named and no exclusion is given, even though update_application_details and list_facts_to_provide are near-neighbours that an agent should be routed away from or towards.

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