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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it returns up to 12 risk-ordered lines, includes findings and likely hiring-manager questions, identifies missing role signals, does not rewrite lines, accepts English up to 30000 characters, strips contact details, and stores nothing. These details clarify output shape, limits, privacy handling, and non-mutating behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then compactly covers output, scope limits, and privacy. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context, with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns, how results are ordered, and what it will not do. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, the definition is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds the 30000-character limit and contact-detail removal, but it does not explain the optional role parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: reviewing a whole resume line by line for PM/TPM/PMO/BA roles. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_resume_line and match_resume_to_job by emphasizing whole-resume scope and risk-ordered findings.

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?

It gives a clear usage trigger: when someone shares a resume and asks for review, feedback, or what to fix before applying. It does not explicitly name when to prefer sibling tools such as check_resume_line or match_resume_to_job, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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