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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the error condition for unknown/expired tokens with a prescribed recovery, and the privacy posture (email is masked, CV preview omits contacts). Those two facts materially change how an agent should interpret and relay the result.

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, front-loaded with the operation and the return shape, then usage timing, then exclusions and failure handling. No sentence is redundant and no filler is present.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields itself. With one fully documented required parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this tool and to interpret or handle its failure mode.

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 schema already documents the draft_token's provenance and 64-hex format, so the description cannot add much. It reinforces provenance by naming create_seafarer_profile_draft and ties an invalid token to the error path, but that is marginal value over the structured field. 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 (check) and resource (a Krew Guru profile draft) and enumerates exactly what is returned: status with its two possible values, masked email, CV preview without contacts, handoff_url, and matched_vacancies. It also names the sibling create_seafarer_profile_draft as the origin of the token, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening either schema.

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 triggering condition ('when the seafarer comes back later and asks about the draft or the matched vacancies'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for signing in or for entering the email code'), and names where that action belongs instead (krew.guru). It also covers the failure path: an unknown or expired token returns an error, and the recovery is to create a new draft.

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