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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a sign-in requirement and the shape of the results (primary CV plus other CVs, each with an open link). It does not discuss result limits or ordering, which is a minor residual gap for a zero-parameter listing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the authentication prerequisite and followed by the returned content and the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place; only the repeated site name is slightly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully summarizes the two CV categories. The one gap is that the relationship to the CV-variant siblings (create_cv_variant, set_primary_cv) is only implicit in "their other CVs", which may leave ambiguity about whether variants appear in this listing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate, and the empty schema leaves no gaps. The description correctly spends no words restating parameter details and instead describes the returned entities.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Lists the signed-in user's CVs") and further specifies the contents: the primary CV and the other CVs, each with an open link. It distinguishes itself from get_cv and score_cv by positioning itself as the enumeration step.

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 states the concrete use case ("Use it to pick a cv_id") and explicitly routes follow-up actions to the right siblings: reading content with get_cv and rating with score_cv. That is a clear when-to-use plus named alternatives, which is what an agent needs to choose this tool over get_cv.

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