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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the description adds genuine extra context: it returns one finding plus a likely hiring-manager question, removes contact details before analysis, stores nothing, and enforces a 5-word/500-character English input. It doesn't explain what happens on invalid or too-short input, which is the only notable omission.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return value, then input/privacy constraints. No sentence is redundant, and nothing important is buried.

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 correctly explains what is returned ('one finding and the question a hiring manager may ask'). Combined with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, only edge-case behavior (invalid line length, non-English without text_en) is left unspecified.

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 all four parameters are documented in depth, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the line constraints ('5 words to 500 characters, English') without adding meaning for lang, role or text_en; the 'contact details are removed first' note is input preprocessing rather than parameter guidance.

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 ('Checks') and a precisely scoped resource ('one resume bullet'), plus the audience (PM/TPM/PMO). The scope word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling review_resume, which handles whole resumes.

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 clear trigger: 'Use it when someone asks about a single line or wants to test a rewrite of it.' It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. review_resume for the whole document) or stating when not to use it, so it falls just below the top score.

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