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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond that: a hard cap of three results, the exact payload contents, the fallback to a role list when there is no query or no match, and a note that people/companies are fictional (useful for downstream framing). It does not cover pagination or ranking of the three matches, but with no output schema the author deserves credit for the disclosed behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns. The fallback rule and the fictional-data caveat are each stated once and earn their space.

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 carry the return contract, and it does: match contents, page link, editor-start link, and the no-match/no-query behavior. Combined with annotations that cover safety, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes a step further by explaining the semantics of the absent parameter — omitting the query returns the library's covered roles — which is genuine added meaning beyond the schema.

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 ("Searches ResumeNext's library of resume examples by job title or field") and specifies what comes back (up to three examples with headline, summary, bullets, skills, links). It never names the sibling list_resume_templates, so the distinction between examples and templates must be inferred from the resource noun alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: pass a role to search, omit it to get the covered-roles list. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules and no mention of the sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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