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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail — that results include Studio deep links and preview images, i.e. the tool returns actionable references, not just names.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the repeated 'each with a link that opens Studio...' construction makes it denser than necessary. The two result sets could be enumerated more crisply.

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 no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does — two collections with links and a preview image. What's missing is scale/ordering hints (how many designs, are example resumes grouped or flat), which would help an agent plan consumption.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The empty schema is consistent with a fixed listing operation.

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 (List) and two concrete resources — resume designs and example resumes by role — plus what each item carries (Studio link, preview image). This clearly separates it from action siblings like open_in_studio or check_resume, which operate on a single artifact.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/browse step before picking a design. There is no explicit 'use this when you need to see available designs' statement, no mention of open_in_studio as the follow-up action, and no exclusions.

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