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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: 'No AI, no cost' and the concrete nature of the findings returned, which an agent could not infer from structured fields alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the returned artifact, followed by a tight usage condition. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long single sentence but not wasteful.

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 read-only, two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies enough: what it does, what comes back, that it is free and non-AI, and the triggering intent. Only the sibling-routing and locale nuance are missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so cvId and locale are already documented in the schema; a baseline of 3 applies. The description only implies single-CV scoping ('one of the user's CVs') and adds nothing about the locale parameter or its defaulting behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (run ATS check), resource (a CV), and even the output shape (0–100 score plus findings like weak verbs, missing dates, unquantified bullets). However, with many overlapping siblings (find_takemeup_weak_achievements, detect_takemeup_buzzwords, roast_takemeup_cv), it does not name what distinguishes it from those.

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 closing clause 'Use when the user asks whether their CV or resume is ATS-friendly or will pass automated screening' gives a real trigger condition. But there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling (weak-achievements, buzzwords) to prefer for overlapping diagnoses.

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