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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the output format (markdown), the profile scope (single), and the source of the id (search handle). It does not explicitly state error behavior or read-only nature, but 'fetch' strongly implies a non-destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the resource, the format, and the parameter origin.

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 one-parameter getter tool, the description covers the purpose, the parameter provenance, and the return format. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains what the agent will receive (full markdown). This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already covers the 'id' parameter with an example, and the description adds crucial semantic context by explaining the id is the handle returned from search. This goes beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 states the tool fetches a single d.cv profile in full markdown format by id. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('d.cv profile'), distinguishing it from search and shortlist tools. The scope 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?

The description implies the tool is used after search by mentioning 'the handle returned from search', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over the sibling tool 'get_profile' or provide exclusion criteria. The context is present but not fully explicit.

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