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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the non-decisional stance ('Organizes evidence; never rejects anyone for you') and the hidden-text flagging behavior, which an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and feature set, then a single boundary clause. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 3 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, outputs, and the non-rejection boundary. It could say a bit more about the shape of the evidence output, but nothing essential for invoking 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 fully documents resumes, blind_mode, and must_haves, making 3 the baseline. The description references must-haves and blind mode but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource ('Screen engineering CVs') and enumerates the concrete outputs (evidence scores, blind mode, hidden-text flags, screening-call questions), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like detect_resume_injection or check_hiring_fit, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (screening CVs against must-haves) and the closing boundary ('never rejects anyone for you') clarifies the tool's advisory role. However, it never says when to reach for this versus sibling tools such as detect_resume_injection or score_interview_notes, so the agent must infer the routing.

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