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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that data is sent to 'rolefig' for remote formatting and that nothing is saved or submitted. It does not describe the shape of the returned resume text, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, scope constraint front-loaded, then exclusions, then the data-handling note. No filler, and each sentence changes how an agent would call the tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what comes back; 'format into resume text' only gestures at it. Combined with seven undocumented required parameters, an agent knows the boundaries but not the input expectations or the return value.

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?

All 7 parameters are required with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it never explains what name, headline, summary, experience, skills, or education should contain or how they are formatted. Only the 'contact' field gets indirect guidance via the omit-contact-details sentence.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Format ... into resume text') and immediately bounds the scope with 'ONLY candidate-supplied facts'. No sibling tool formats resumes, and the description makes that distinct role obvious without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage conditions: format only supplied facts, omit contact details unless the candidate wants them included. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but no sibling performs comparable work, so the remaining guidance is adequate.

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