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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool only hands back a link, the analysis is performed externally, and it explicitly does not receive or read any CV, which prevents an agent from assuming it does the analysis.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the crucial clarification that the analysis is external. No filler; each sentence removes a potential misunderstanding.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so adequately: it states what comes back (a link plus what the person receives) and how the flow works. Minor gap in not describing the link's format or destination, but nothing critical is missing.

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, so the schema carries no semantics to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify on inputs.

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: it returns the link to analyze a CV on MissCV plus what the person receives. It also draws a clear boundary ('el análisis no ocurre en el chat'), which helps separate it from siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explains the actual usage flow: the analysis happens off-chat, the person uploads their CV at the returned link. This tells an agent when and how the tool fits the conversation, but it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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