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

Annotations only cover the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent). The description adds prerequisites the agent cannot infer: PRO plan plus AI consent, a daily limit surfaced as a 429 quota_exceeded error, an exact return shape {summary, usage}, and the persistence target (personal.summary via save_takemeup_cv). This is substantive context that directly affects how to call and handle failures.

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?

One dense but well-ordered paragraph: purpose first, then prerequisites, then the usage trigger, then return shape and next step. No filler sentences, though the prerequisite and limit clauses are compressed tightly enough to require careful reading.

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 no-output-schema, single-required-param generation tool, the description supplies the return fields, the gating conditions, and the follow-up write step. The main gap is not clarifying how it differs from rewrite_takemeup_cv when a summary already exists.

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 all three parameters (cvId, focus, locale) are already documented, including that cvId comes from list_my_takemeup_cvs and that locale defaults to the account language. The description only echoes the experience/skills focus, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema – baseline 3.

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: 'Write a professional summary (profile) for the top of one of the user's CVs,' with the experience/skills focus scoping it further. This distinguishes it from broad mutators like rewrite_takemeup_cv, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use when the CV has no summary or a weak one' gives a clear trigger condition, and the description routes the agent to save_takemeup_cv as the required follow-up. What's missing is an explicit 'don't use this when …' versus rewrite_takemeup_cv, which is a natural alternative for existing summaries.

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