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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context annotations cannot express: it is AI-backed and therefore rate-limited, and nothing is stored. Those are real operational constraints for an agent planning calls. It stops short of stating whether repeated calls can return different results, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 tight sentences: what it does, how the output is shaped, then the operational caveats. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does: a requirement-by-requirement comparison with quotes from both texts and a prioritized list of fixes. Combined with the rate-limit and no-storage notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 schema already documents character limits, required inputs, locale enum, and a PII-stripping instruction for cv_text. The description only refers generically to 'a CV' and 'one vacancy', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resources ('Compares a CV with one vacancy') and even describes the granularity of the comparison, so the agent knows exactly what operation it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_cv, which appears to handle a CV alone; the singular 'one vacancy' hints at the difference but the description never names the alternative.

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 by the purpose: use this when you have both a CV and a vacancy to match. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (check_cv), so an agent choosing between the two siblings must infer the boundary from the tool names alone.

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