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

The description asserts 'Reads saved data only: it stores nothing, sends no email, and does not change the CV on file,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. the tool is not guaranteed read-only. The stated side-effect profile directly conflicts with the structured safety hint an agent would otherwise rely on.

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 sentences, tightly front-loaded: what it returns and ordering first, then triggering conditions, then prerequisites and side effects. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or title.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs beyond structure: ordering semantics, the CV-upload and AI-consent preconditions, and the no-email/no-CV-change behavior. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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% and the single `limit` parameter already documents its default (10) and 1-25 bounds, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. what happens if limit exceeds available matches), which is the baseline-3 case.

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 scope and ordering: 'List the assignments consultant.dev has scored against the signed-in user's CV, highest scoring first.' That is enough to distinguish it from get_assignment/search_assignments, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with refresh_matches, which is the closest neighbor in intent.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user asks which assignments suit them, fit their profile, or match their CV') plus prerequisites (CV uploaded, AI-processing consent accepted). It does not say when NOT to use it or point to refresh_matches for recomputation, which is the main remaining inference the agent must make.

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