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

Annotations already establish readOnly and closed-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the return format (Markdown) and that each line carries supporting evidence. It stops short of noting size, pagination, or what happens when no resume exists, which is the only remaining behavioral 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?

One front-loaded clause with zero filler, and the two facts that matter (format, evidence payload) come first. As a fragment rather than a sentence it is terse, but nothing is wasted.

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-shape burden, and it partially does by naming Markdown and per-line evidence. It leaves unresolved how the resume differs from get_profile's output and how large the payload may be, which matters for an agent deciding between the two.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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 the specific resource returned ('the full resume') and its format ('as Markdown'), which is more concrete than the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_profile, which an agent may easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent whether this is the right call versus get_profile or get_project when both could plausibly return narrative information about the person.

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