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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried. The description usefully adds that results include scores and dates, but says nothing about behavior for a missing cvId, empty history, or whether locale affects stored names — modest value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy: the first defines the scope and return payload, the second defines the usage moment. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

Simple read tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage; the description covers purpose and return contents even though there is no output schema. It could be slightly more complete about what counts as "next steps" or what an empty run list means.

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 parameters are already documented, including the locale default. The description adds no hint about how cvId is obtained or how locale affects the returned scores and dates, so 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 ("List which TakeMeUp checks and AI features have already run on one of the user's CVs") plus the return payload (scores and dates). It implicitly separates itself from list_takemeup_addons by emphasizing "already run," but never names that 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 to see what has been done on a CV before suggesting next steps" gives a clear triggering context. There is no exclusion clause or named alternative (e.g. use list_takemeup_addons for the catalog of available add-ons), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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