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 description adds value by disclosing the shape of what comes back – the resume body plus its application and posting cross-references. It stops short of anything about missing/unrecognized ids or list sizes, but for a read-only lookup it discloses the meaningful behavior.

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; the resource comes first and the returned components follow immediately.

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 return content and it does name the three components (text, applications, earmarked postings), which is enough to decide to call it. Only the edge cases – unknown id, empty cross-reference sets – are absent.

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% and the schema itself supplies the format hint ('e.g. RV-0001'), so the description carries no burden and adds nothing about the identifier. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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-and-resource pair ('one resume version') and enumerates the payload it returns: contents, applications it was attached to, and earmarked postings. An agent can distinguish it from hunt_resume_versions (the plural list) from the singular framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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: the singular 'One resume version' suggests fetching by a known id rather than browsing, which points at hunt_resume_versions as the enumeration path. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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