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

Annotations already mark this read-only and closed-world, and the description stays consistent while adding substance the annotations cannot convey: deterministic fixed-rule scoring, per-check pass/partial/fail with observed evidence and exact fix, and that the text is scored once and not stored. That last point is a meaningful privacy signal an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then outputs, then scope limits, then the follow-on action — a sensible order with little waste. The list of checks in parentheses is slightly compressed (eight items stand in for the eleven claimed checks), a minor density cost rather than padding.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so: score scale, per-check verdicts, evidence plus fix, and determinism. It also covers the tool's main limitation and the privacy/data-retention behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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 single parameter is already documented with its plain-text format and 400–20,000 character bounds. The description's "Pass the résumé as plain text" restates the schema rather than extending it (no note on what happens with PDFs, markdown, or truncated pastes), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (score a résumé) plus the output shape: a score out of 100 across eleven fixed checks. No sibling tool touches résumés, and the description makes that boundary obvious without the agent opening the schema.

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 concrete trigger phrases ("check my résumé", "will this get past applicant tracking systems") and an explicit exclusion: it cannot judge whether experience suits a role. It also tells the agent what to do with the result (use findings to rewrite the résumé), which is real routing guidance.

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