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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them: it discloses the 'Free' cost tier and the exact return shape {yaml, filename} even though no output schema exists. Only gaps are auth/permission requirements and any size or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose is front-loaded, then audience, then cost and return shape. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple, read-only, two-parameter export with rich annotations and a stated return shape, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only shortfall is the missing routing guidance against the other export/get-CV siblings.

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% and both parameters are fully documented, including the enum and the hint to obtain cvId from list_my_takemeup_cvs. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Export ... CVs as YAML text') and even describes the output artifact ('a clean, structured copy for other tools or AI assistants'). Distinct from export siblings by format, but never explicitly contrasts itself with export_takemeup_europass or get_takemeup_cv.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for other tools or AI assistants' and 'Free', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions for choosing this over export_takemeup_europass or get_takemeup_cv, and no prerequisites such as needing the CV id from list_my_takemeup_cvs (that only appears in the schema).

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