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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior — recruiters see the CV but not contact details until the user approves each one, and the feature is free. That privacy/consent model is not derivable from the annotations. It does not say what happens to in-flight recruiter approvals when enabled is set to false, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its reverse, followed by the privacy consequence, the cost, and the consent precondition. No restatement of the name or title and no filler.

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 toggling mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, visibility effect, pricing, and consent, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of any mention of checking current state or handling pending recruiter approvals keeps it from the top.

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%: cvId already points at list_my_takemeup_cvs, enabled already spells out true/false meaning, and locale explains the default. The description adds only the possessive framing ('one of the user's CVs'), so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and 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 with both directions of the toggle: 'Make one of the user's CVs findable by verified recruiters ... or hide it again.' This cleanly separates it from the read-side sibling get_takemeup_get_found and from create_takemeup_share_link, which implies a different sharing mechanism.

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?

Gives clear context for when to invoke: on the user's request, at no cost, and 'Only with the user's explicit agreement' as a hard precondition. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. check get_takemeup_get_found for current state, or answer_takemeup_recruiter for pending recruiter requests), so there are no explicit exclusions.

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