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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing output behavior per input: direct swaps plus a rationale, matched verb groups with example bullets, or every group when query is empty. Return format details (structure, count) remain unspecified.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the core action, then the input-mode guidance; no sentence is filler. It is dense with quoted examples, but each clause carries distinct instruction rather than repeating the 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?

With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what to pass and what comes back for each mode. It would be fully complete if it clarified the shape or volume of the returned groups, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not: a weak opener yields direct swaps, plain work wording yields matched verb groups, and leaving query empty returns all groups. That mapping meaningfully improves the agent's ability to fill the parameter correctly.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("Suggest resume action verbs" / "stronger verbs or synonyms for resume wording"), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from related siblings like improve_bullet or check_bullets, which also touch resume wording, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this when the user wants stronger verbs or synonyms for resume wording" is a concrete trigger condition, and the description further splits usage into two input modes plus the empty-query case. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so an agent can't tell when a sibling is the better pick.

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