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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the PRO/AI-consent prerequisite and that the call may return either a result or a plan gate. The annotations already disclose read-only=false and idempotent=false, though the description does not explain the implications of those flags, such as quota consumption or repeated scoring behavior.

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: it states what is scored, when to use it, prerequisites, and return shape without filler. Every clause carries useful information for selecting or invoking the 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?

For a two-parameter scoring tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly, including plan/consent gating and a return-shape hint. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what the score means or why the tool is marked non-read-only and non-idempotent, but the essential invocation context is present.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions that the tool operates on one of the user's CVs, but it does not add format or selection guidance beyond the schema's cvId and locale descriptions.

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: score how authentic and human one of the user's CVs reads, and contrasts it with generic or AI-sounding text. It also names the concrete outcome, passages to rewrite, so the tool is clearly distinct from CV editing or generic CV analysis 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 gives a clear triggering condition: use when the user worries their CV sounds AI-written or generic. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to a specific alternative such as rewrite_takemeup_cv, but the intended context is easy to infer.

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