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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by framing this as a 'check'. It adds useful specificity by naming what is being verified (30-day unwatermarked pass and unlimited edits), but it does not add additional behavioral details such as authentication needs, response shape, or error behavior.

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 compact sentence that starts with the action verb and the target resource. Every word adds relevant meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only entitlement check with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete about what is being checked and what the tool does. It could add a brief note about when this entitlement status matters or what the output indicates, but the existing schema and annotations cover the remaining operational context.

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%, with resume_id already described as 'Resume UUID or ID', so the structured schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds only the context of 'specific resume' and the entitlement condition, but not anything 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?

The description clearly identifies the verb ('check'), the resource ('a specific resume'), and the exact condition being verified ('active 30-day unwatermarked pass and unlimited edits'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like civify_purchase_cv_pass or civify_generate_pdf, since it is a read-only entitlement status check.

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 the tool should be used when you need to know whether a resume has an active pass, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as civify_purchase_cv_pass. The agent is left to infer when this check is the right call.

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