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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds little beyond that: 'Effects: resume version registered' restates the obvious, and it does not explain duplicate handling, uniqueness constraints, permissions, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose. The 'Effects' sentence is largely redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and does not bury the main point.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains the purpose but leaves the agent without guidance on how to populate most fields or what to expect from the registration operation.

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 has 7 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, with most properties documented by empty descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter semantics at all, leaving fields such as focus, notes, headline, platform, file_path, and external_id without meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: register a resume version. It clearly explains the business purpose but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as hunt_resume_versions or hunt_get_resume.

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?

It gives an implied usage scenario: register the resume version that an application points to when a recruiter asks about 'the resume you sent'. However, it does not say when to use this instead of related sibling tools or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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