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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the lifecycle of the stored data ('stored for at most 60 minutes and deleted the first time the link is opened') and that no account/auth is needed. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs when handling user CV text, and the write semantics (readOnlyHint=false) are made concrete.

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 with zero filler; the return value leads, the data-retention caveat follows, and the call condition closes. 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return value (a link) and its expiration behavior. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%: locale, cv_text (length bounds, PII removal), and vacancy_text are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Returns a link that opens this CV in the WerkCV editor' states exactly what the tool produces and what it does with it. It is trivially distinguishable from check_cv and match_vacancy, which analyze rather than hand off an editing link.

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?

'Call only when the user wants to edit or download the CV' gives an explicit positive trigger with an exclusivity qualifier, implying the tool should not be called for checks or matching. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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