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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the save flag behavior (saves only if true) and the refusal of .doc/.rtf formats, which are not in the annotations. No contradiction with 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, with the primary purpose stated first and the safety/constraint note second. Every clause carries information: the action, the output shape, the save behavior, and the file format restriction. No redundancy or padding.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description gives a partial picture of the return: 'into the profile shape, with the sections found and anything unplaced.' This is sufficient for an agent to understand the general outcome. It does not cover error handling or the exact JSON structure, but for a read operation with clear annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 75%, leaving 'variant' undocumented. The description does not explain 'variant' at all, nor does it clarify the relationship between 'path' and 'docx_base64' (e.g., whether they are alternatives or mutually exclusive). The description does reinforce that docx_base64 is the .docx itself, but the gap on 'variant' is not compensated.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'read an existing .docx resume into the profile shape.' It explicitly mentions the output (sections found, anything unplaced) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like resume_create (creation) and resume_to_html/markdown (conversion). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context: use it to read an existing .docx resume, and it explicitly warns that nothing is saved unless save=true, advising review first. It also specifies that .doc and .rtf are refused, which is a key constraint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario.

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