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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: the consent-token requirement, token revocation behavior, the guarantee of no enumeration, and the explicit statement that personal data is never exposed without a token. This fully discloses the tool's privacy and safety model.

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 concise given the complexity of the consent model, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds unique value. It flows logically from what the tool does, to the prerequisite, to the return value, to restrictions and privacy guarantees, with no wasted words.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the return format (JSON Resume plus ats_context), explains what ats_context contains, covers all relevant edge cases (missing/invalid/revoked token), and describes the tool's limitation (no enumeration). This is fully complete for a single-parameter, consent-gated fetch tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single token parameter, including its source URL and length constraints. The description adds behaviorally meaningful semantics: passing the token returns the resume, and invalid/revoked tokens return nothing, which goes beyond the schema's static field definition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a job seeker's structured, machine-readable resume as JSON Resume' with a clear distinction from siblings by emphasizing the consent-token-gated nature and the returned ATS context. It clearly differentiates itself from the ATS-focused sibling tools.

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 explicitly states the critical precondition: the tool can only be used with an owner-minted consent token, and that no token, invalid token, or revoked token returns nothing. It also explicitly rules out browsing/searching/listing, but does not name alternative sibling tools for those use cases; still, the guidance is otherwise very clear.

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