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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the CV is stored encrypted, fields are parsed out of it, and unrelated profile fields (name, phone, links) can be set in the same call. It does not note auth requirements or whether an existing CV is overwritten.

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?

Four short sentences, with the core action and storage/extraction behavior front-loaded. The opening phrase duplicates the title verbatim, which is minor waste, but nothing else is padded.

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 16-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what gets saved, that it's encrypted, that data is extracted, how to pass either text or a file, and that a readable summary comes back in `say`. Remaining gap is the absence of any note on overwriting prior CVs or permission requirements.

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 meaning the schema does not: cv and file_base64 are alternative input modes (text vs. base64 file with filename), and the other parameters are a partial-update side channel ('Can also set name, phone and links at the same time'). It still does not explain the intros/offers/shifts toggles, which the schema does cover.

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 concrete verb and resource (save the person's CV, as text or file) and adds the key side effects (encrypted storage, extraction of titles/skills/years/education). It does not name a sibling such as update_profile or match_cv to disambiguate, 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?

The description tells the agent how to supply the CV ('Send the text as cv, or a file as file_base64 with filename'), which is invocation guidance, but it never says when to use this tool versus update_profile, match_cv, or set_preferences_from_text, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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