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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the return content ('including its kind, date range, note text and linked tasks') without contradicting the annotations. It does not describe error cases or permission requirements, but annotations cover the safety aspect.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, efficiently covering purpose, scope, and return content in one line.

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 only two parameters (both required) and no enums or nested complexity, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the scope, and what is returned. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a simple retrieve-by-id tool with read-only annotations, this is sufficient. The list of included fields compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'pk' is the resume entry id and 'company_id' is the parent scope. It adds meaning by explaining that retrieval is scoped within a company and that the response includes linked tasks. Minor inaccuracy: it calls company_id a 'path parameter' while the schema places it in the request body, but the schema itself is clear enough to prevent misplacement.

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 action ('Retrieve a single resume entry by id within a company') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_resumeentries (which retrieves multiple) and create/update/destroy operations by explicitly stating 'single' and 'by id'.

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 context: use this to fetch one specific resume entry by id, scoped to a company. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., for multiple entries use list), but the contrast with siblings is obvious from the verb 'retrieve' and 'single'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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