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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the structured fields: 'Free, no AI, nothing is stored' tells the agent there is no cost and that input is not retained, which matters for pasting personal CV text.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the usage cue follows. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does name the two outputs (a 1-10 grade and a prioritized fix list). It stops short of describing how the grade is structured or what a 'fix' entry contains, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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%, so cv_text and locale are already fully documented, including the locale auto-detection and the 200-25,000 character bounds. The description adds no parameter-level information at all, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (grades), the resource (a CV), the scale (1 to 10), and the criteria (Dutch hiring conventions and ATS readability), plus a concrete deliverable (the fixes to make first). This is unmistakably distinct from match_vacancy and open_in_editor without opening any 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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use when the user wants to know how strong their CV is.' No exclusions or named alternatives are offered, but the context of use is unambiguous.

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