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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact review criteria, the output shape (up to 10 findings ordered by risk, each with line, recruiter question and direction, plus per-section scores), the boundary 'It does not rewrite the text', and data-handling facts (English only, contact details stripped first, nothing stored). That is exactly the kind of disclosure structured fields cannot carry.

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 purpose, then usage, then the criteria list, then return shape and limits, so the ordering is sound. The criteria sentence is a long comma-heavy enumeration that could be tightened, but every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description must carry return-shape and constraint information, and it does: finding count, ordering, per-finding structure, per-section scores, language handling and privacy behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains lang, role, the _en translation fields and the 'at least headline or About' rule; the description adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Checks the LinkedIn headline and About section'), plus an explicit scope (PM, TPM, PMO lead) and optional extension (top experience entry). That is clearly separable from siblings like review_resume, check_resume_line and check_interview_answer, which operate on different artifacts.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use it when someone asks to review or improve their LinkedIn profile for recruiters.' This is enough to route the agent away from resume and interview tools. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating exclusions explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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