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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining what counts as entitled and adding the 'currently' freshness qualifier, but it does not disclose response behavior or error cases.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and precise entitlement conditions, making every word earn its place.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations covering side effects, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No return-value explanation is needed because an output schema exists.

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 documents resume_id with a description and 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no extra detail about ID format, ownership requirements, or how the resume relates to the pass, keeping this at baseline.

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 ('check') against a clearly defined resource ('a specific resume') and precisely states what is being verified: an active 30-day unwatermarked pass and unlimited edits. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like civify_purchase_cv_pass or civify_generate_pdf.

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 makes it clear this is an entitlement status check, so an agent can infer it should be used when verification of an existing pass is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference from sibling names like civify_purchase_cv_pass.

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