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

Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, open-world write with no destruction. The description adds real context beyond that: the 15 MB decoded limit and the asynchronous polling contract with 'ready' defined as adoption into the account. The pre-adoption state and what pending looks like is left slightly implicit, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the format/size constraint before the async polling instructions.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers constraints plus the async lifecycle. A bit more on the filename parameter or the not-ready state would push it to 5, but it's sufficient to call 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantics. It explains the format constraint and clarifies the 15 MB limit is on decoded size rather than the base64 string length, which is genuinely useful. However, it never explains the filename parameter's role or the base64 encoding requirement for content_base64.

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 (upload) and resource (resume) plus accepted formats (PDF/DOCX) and size cap. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_resume_status, though it doesn't explicitly name the relationship to them.

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 the post-call workflow (poll operation_id until ready) but never says when to choose this tool versus get_resume_status or how it fits before find_matches/submit_applications. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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