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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does by noting the tool writes a file and returns the output path, estimated page count, dropped bullets, and keyword match/missing status, revealing potential bullet trimming. It doesn't cover failure modes like existing file conflicts, though the schema covers the overwrite flag.

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 states the action and enumerates the return values with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs.

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 explain return values, and it does by listing the output path, page count, dropped bullets, and keyword status. It also makes clear it uses the stored profile. It doesn't mention error handling, but the schema covers overwrite and defaults, making this adequate for a creation tool.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, only behavioral context about return values. It stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the specific action 'write the stored profile to a Word .docx', identifying both the verb and the resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like resume_read or resume_to_markdown, which read or convert rather than create a new docx.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use guidance. It implies this is the tool for creating a .docx resume, but doesn't contrast it with resume_to_html or resume_to_markdown, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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