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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by enumerating exactly what data the profile holds: contact info, skills, roles, education, targeting rules, and plan status. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the response content.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the trigger condition, the exclusion context, and the content breakdown. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the phrase 'The CV profile Keywordise holds for this account' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, contents, and usage boundaries well. There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned data partially compensates, though it stops short of describing the exact response structure or field formats.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is the only meaningful semantic contribution possible here.

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 clearly states the tool returns the user's profile/CV data, targeting rules, and plan status. It distinguishes itself from search/apply tools by noting they read the saved CV themselves, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_targeting or get_account.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the person asks what is on their profile or CV'), an explicit exclusion ('Not needed before searching or applying'), and a call to action ('Call this first'). This leaves little ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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