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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an authentication prerequisite (techjobs.vn sign-in), the exact set of fields returned despite having no output schema, and the guarantee that the shape matches what update_cv_variant accepts. It stops short of describing failure or empty-CV behavior, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

Front-loaded with the auth prerequisite, then the resource scope, then the field list, then the workflow instruction — a sensible ordering. The long section enumeration and the closing sentence partially restate the update_cv_variant relationship already implied by "in the shape update_cv_variant takes," so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: auth requirement, default target, what comes back, and how the result feeds into update_cv_variant. Adding more would mostly duplicate the schema or the annotations.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as coming from list_my_cvs, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the default behavior (omit cv_id to read the primary CV) and frames cv_id as selecting among the user's own CVs, which adds slight clarity about scoping beyond the schema text.

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?

"Reads the sections of the user's primary CV (or of another of their CVs by cv_id)" gives a specific verb plus resource and states the default scope, which cleanly separates it from list_my_cvs (listing IDs) and update_cv_variant (writing). The enumerated section list further pins down exactly what is retrieved.

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 explicitly prescribes the workflow: read with this tool before rewriting with update_cv_variant, and it names list_my_cvs as the source of cv_id. That is a concrete when-to-use plus a named alternative, so little is left to inference.

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