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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what comes back ('direct swaps and why they read weak', 'matching verb groups with an example bullet'), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first, then the input modes. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly heavy with nested parentheticals but no wasted sentences.

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-param, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input modes, and the empty-query case. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned groups (ordering, count, formatting), which would be the only remaining gap.

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 meaning beyond the terse schema text: it explains what each form of the query buys you and that an empty query returns all groups. That is semantic guidance the schema does not carry.

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 ('Suggest resume action verbs') and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling bullet-editing tools by focusing on verb selection rather than rewriting whole bullets. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the 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?

Explicitly describes three input modes and what each yields: a weak opener for direct swaps, plain-word work description for verb groups, or empty for every group. It gives clear usage context but never names a sibling alternative (e.g., improve_bullet) or states when NOT to use this tool.

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