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

Annotations already safely mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns the canonical profile exactly as downstream generation tools will see it, including the resolved variant and every stored variant name. Since there is no output schema, this return-content disclosure is valuable and does not contradict 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core behavior, and adds a clear call-to-action ('Call it before any rewrite') with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers what is returned and when to call it, which is good given the simple read-only nature of the tool. However, because there is no output schema and parameter coverage is zero, the missing explanation of the optional variant selection and the meaning of 'the variant read' leaves an important gap.

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 0%, so the description must explain the optional 'variant' parameter. It mentions 'the variant read' and 'every stored variant name,' but never explicitly states how passing a variant affects the result or what happens when it is omitted. The only parameter's semantics remain under-specified.

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 ('Return') and a concrete resource ('the stored CV profile'), then specifies exactly how it will be used: 'exactly as resume_create, cover_letter_create and tailor_to_job will use it.' It also distinguishes itself from related read/write siblings by calling out the additional variant information and the dependencies on those generators.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call it before any rewrite.' This is clear, practical context for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It does not name exclusions or directly compare against alternative tools like profile_set or resume_read, so it falls just short of the highest score.

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