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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description meaningfully qualifies what 'read-only' means here — the output is draft-only, tenant-scoped, and never sent, applied, or approved externally. It also discloses the export path (Artifact Studio PDF) and the receipt return, adding context beyond the annotations. No hard contradiction: the draft-only/external-use qualifiers are consistent with the read-only hint, though the annotation carries a slight tension with the act of exporting an artifact.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and every clause earning its place: scope and inputs, pipeline steps, return value, and safety exclusion. There is no filler, boilerplate, or repetition of schema data.

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?

The workflow, safety profile, and return receipt are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. But for an 11-parameter tool with only 18% schema coverage, the description still leaves an agent guessing about which identifiers are required or optional in which scenario, so it is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 only 18% — 9 of 11 parameters, including tenant_id, canonical_job_id, application_id, and queue_item_id, are undocumented. The description gestures at parameter groups ('hydrated role', 'stored applicant proof bank', 'thin stored role') but never maps specific identifiers to their roles in the call, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Generate a tenant-scoped, draft-only standalone resume' — then names the full pipeline: source inputs (hydrated role, stored applicant proof bank), export path (PDF through Artifact Studio), and return value (render-readback receipt). The closing exclusion ('never sends, applies, or approves external use') distinguishes it from application/compose siblings like talent_scout_compose_application without needing to open their schemas.

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 establishes clear context: use it when a finished draft resume needs to be rendered from a hydrated role and an applicant proof bank. It also gives explicit when-not guidance via 'It never sends, applies, or approves external use.' However, it never names an alternative tool or the condition that would route an agent to a sibling such as talent_scout_compose_application or artifact_export.

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