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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: the fixed count of 32 templates, the fact that the same Markdown renders across all templates, and that returned IDs are usable in render_resume_pdf. This goes beyond a simple 'list' statement, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output format.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It includes the count, content, usage guidance, and an important cross-tool tip without any fluff or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides complete context: what it returns (all 32 with descriptions), how to use it (recommend a look), what to do with the IDs (render_resume_pdf), and even a behavioral quirk (consistent Markdown). There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter information. It does add cross-tool relevance by mentioning that template IDs feed into render_resume_pdf, which is useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists all 32 ResumeMD templates with one-line descriptions, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting template ids are valid input to render_resume_pdf, making its listing purpose distinct from rendering.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this to recommend a look for the user and gives role-based examples, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it only indirectly differentiates from render_resume_pdf and does not explicitly mention alternatives like analyze_resume or get_resume_markdown_guide, or state when not to use it.

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