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

Beyond the annotations, it explains that this creates a public page with no name or contact details, that recruiters can request a reveal, that it requires explicit user action, and what identifiers are returned. This gives strong behavioral context for a non-read-only, open-world 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, privacy scope, PRO requirement, safety constraint, and return values are all covered without filler. The terse 'PRO.' sentence is acceptable given the surrounding context.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the returned fields ({stealthId, pseudoId, url}) and the need to retain stealthId for later removal. Combined with full schema parameter descriptions and annotations, an agent has enough information to call this correctly.

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%, so both cvId and locale are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect context ('one of the user's CVs') and does not explain locale semantics beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: publish an anonymised version of a CV on a public page for recruiters. It also captures the stealth/anonymised scope and recruiter reveal flow, which distinguishes it from general CV sharing or revision siblings.

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?

It clearly constrains usage to the user's explicit request and notes PRO gating, which is important context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or compare against siblings like create_takemeup_share_link, but the publish/stealth condition is sufficiently clear.

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