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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable contextual behavior: it is a paid model call, limited to 20 per hour, and has the same billing gate as applying. It also clarifies that every segment is labelled tailored, verbatim, or pinned, which describes the output behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first describes the tool's scope and output components, the second covers safety and cost constraints. Every sentence contributes essential information and the key context is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter preview tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, output content, non-sending behavior, and rate/billing limits. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the exact return format or structure beyond naming the segments, but the description supplies enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the only parameter job_id is already documented with its source in the schema. The description only implicitly reinforces that the CV is tailored 'for one vacancy', which adds no real semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rewrite this account's CV for one vacancy' and enumerates exactly what the preview contains (headline, summary, rewritten bullets, curated skills, cover letter). 'Nothing is sent' and 'preview only' clearly distinguish it from sending/apply tools even without naming a sibling.

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: the tool previews what Keywordise would send, and 'Nothing is sent' signals it is a dry-run before applying. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like start_apply_run or get_my_cv_pdf.

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