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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation; the description is consistent. It adds useful context like 'Multiple entries per day are allowed' and explains the kind values, but does not disclose additional side effects, required permissions, or error conditions beyond what annotations imply.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, details settable parameters in the second, and adds a key constraint (multiple entries per day) in the third. There is no wasted wording.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, key parameters, kind semantics, optional tasks, and multiplicity. It does not mention return value or prerequisites like the company existing, but given the tool's straightforward nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It mentions company_id, date_from/date_to, note, and tasks, and clarifies the meaning of kind (plan vs done) and that tasks are optional. However, it does not explain date formats or task ID types, which are left to the nested schema. This adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 explicitly states the action ('Create a resume entry'), the resource ('for a company'), and the scope (plans or done over a date range). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update or destroy by focusing on creation and the kind parameter semantics.

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?

The description implies usage for logging planned or completed work by a teammate, and notes that multiple entries per day are allowed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_resumeentries or destroy_resumeentries, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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