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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds two things the annotations cannot: the operation is 'Free' (no cost/charge), and the complete list of fields returned, which matters because no output schema exists.

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: cost and core action first, then the field enumeration. Efficient overall, though the long comma-joined field list reads as a run-on and could be trimmed if an output schema were added.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description carries the burden and does so for return content (field enumeration) and cost. It stops short on the one thing an agent would still guess at: the slug format and what happens on an unknown slug.

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?

One required string parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives the agent nothing. The description at least confirms the parameter's role ('by slug'), but adds no format, length, or lookup-failure guidance, leaving the identifier's semantics largely to inference.

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?

Specific verb (Read) + singular resource (one resident's full résumé) identified by slug, which cleanly distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_residents and the action sibling hire. The enumerated field list further pins down exactly what 'résumé' contains.

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 clause 'before deciding whether to pay' states the decision context that selects this tool over hire, so the agent knows it is a pre-purchase inspection step. It never names the sibling hire explicitly or states any exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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