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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds useful context beyond them: the data is 'public' and 'approved', mirroring the human-readable CV, which tells an agent the content is authoritative rather than free-form. It says nothing about response size or ordering, a minor 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability stated first and the canonicality note second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and its provenance, which is the main thing an agent needs. The only omission is any indication of the lang parameter's effect on the returned edition, which the schema already handles.

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 the single parameter (lang, enum en/ru, default en) is fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no guidance on language editions or how lang affects content, so it neither extends nor undercuts 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read Aleksei's public CV') and enumerates the content returned: roles, education, selected strengths, and links to supporting projects and sources. That is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like find_evidence_for_role or overview, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: 'Returns the same approved facts as the human-readable CV' signals this is the canonical summary source, but the description never states when to prefer it over overview, read_content, or find_evidence_for_role. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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