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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing pricing ($0.005 USDC per successful call via x402 across Base/Solana/Arc), that failed calls are not charged, that missing fields come back as null/empty lists, and that dates are preserved as written. It also flags the PDF-text-layer precondition that determines whether a call can succeed.

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?

Front-loads the output shape, then input formats, then pricing. Three sentences, all earning their place, though the enumerated field list is slightly dense. No filler.

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 a 100%-covered schema and a dedicated output schema, the description needs only to convey inputs, behavior, and cost, all of which it covers. The only real gap is the absence of sibling routing, which matters given the crowded extract/ocr/pdf neighborhood.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the three optional inputs (url, text, pdf_base64) are already documented. The description restates the accepted input modalities but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (parsing a CV/resume into structured data) and enumerates the exact output fields (name, contact, location, skills, work experience, education, etc.), which clearly separates it from generic siblings like extract, ocr, or read.

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 concrete input-acceptance guidance ('plain text, or a PDF with a text layer by URL or base64') but never states when to prefer this over the generic extract/ocr/pdf siblings or when-not to use it. Usage is implied by the resume-specific framing rather than explicitly routed.

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