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

With no supporting annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the generation source, the output format, the bracketed-prompt behavior, and the privacy rule that posting content is not restated as the user's. It does not cover failure modes or overwrite semantics, but those are partially documented in parameters.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core action, output behavior, privacy constraint, and quota. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid summary of the artifact, source, return values, and an important constraint. It could be more complete by explaining what happens if no profile exists or by routing users to a sibling tool for resume generation, but the essentials are present.

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 schema already documents 5 of 8 parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds useful context about 'bracketed prompts' and the no-restatement rule, but it does not explain company, role, or hiring_manager. Overall it neither strongly compensates for the missing schema coverage nor repeats schema details excessively.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'write a one-page cover letter .docx' and clarifies the source ('from the stored profile') and the return value ('path, word count and bracketed prompts'). This clearly separates it from resume-focused siblings like resume_create and resume_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 states the clear trigger: 'Call this tool to write a one-page cover letter .docx.' This gives the agent a direct condition for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid obvious sibling confusion.

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