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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether the tool reads or writes, whether it needs a resume supplied via the query parameter, or what the response contains. 'Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling' describes packaged marketing assets, not the tool's runtime 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?

Only three sentences, but they are front-loaded with generic slogans ('Turn expertise into output') rather than the operation. The sentences consume space without conveying actionable information, so brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

A tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an optional scoping query needs the description to explain the transformation and the expected response shape. Instead it delivers promotional text, leaving the agent unable to predict inputs or outputs reliably.

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 single optional 'query' parameter is 100% documented in the schema, which is the baseline-3 condition. The description adds no extra meaning about what a scoping query should contain (target role, JD, resume text) or what happens when it is omitted.

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 restates the tool name ('resume polish tool') but never states the actual operation - it doesn't say what 'polish' means (rewrite? critique? score? reformat?) or what artifact comes back. The added framing ('prompt pack', 'restaurant and brand teams') is marketing copy that muddies rather than sharpens purpose and doesn't differentiate it from siblings like resume-polish-pro, resume-optimizer, or resume-rewrite-tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With siblings such as resume-optimizer, resume-audit-tool, and resume-star in the namespace, an agent gets zero signal about which resume tool to pick.

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