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

The only behavioral statement, 'Read-only.', merely restates readOnlyHint=true from the annotations, so it adds no value beyond structured data. With annotations already covering readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, the description still omits what is returned (a URL, file bytes, or a signed link), whether large files are truncated, and any permission or scope requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence is effectively redundant with the annotations, costing a little efficiency but not clarity.

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?

There is no output schema and no documentation of the four parameters, so the description should explain the return form and the required identifiers; it does neither. For a download operation against an open-world API with undocumented parameters, this leaves the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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% across four parameters, including a nested 'extra' object, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It mentions none of them; only the word 'applicant' loosely hints at applicant_id, leaving account_id, job_id and extra completely uninterpreted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Download an applicant resume'), which is clearly distinct from the profile-fetching sibling get_applicant. It stops short of distinguishing itself from related resume-adjacent operations, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_applicant, and no prerequisites, authentication expectations, or conditions for calling it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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