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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool returns resume content and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly describe return behavior, side effects, authentication needs, or other runtime traits. This is adequate for a simple get-style tool but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded with the core content, and ends with a practical usage hint. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but still compact and purposeful given the audience.

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 low-complexity retrieval tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid sense of what the agent will get and when to start with it. It could be stronger with explicit alternative routing, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both resumeId and candidate already well documented including defaults, sources, and optionality. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as the full candidate resume and enumerates its contents: work history, achievements, skills. It also positions itself as the starting point for a comprehensive view, distinguishing it from narrower sibling tools such as get_contacts or get_references.

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 phrase 'Начните отсюда, если нужна полная картина / Start here if you need the full picture' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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