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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world, non-destructive profile, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the authentication requirement, the fact that scoring is deterministic fixed-rule (no AI) rather than model-generated, and the shape of the result including an edit link.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the most important gating fact (sign-in required) and then covers scope and outputs. It is efficient, though the long clause chain makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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 no further explanation, and the description still summarizes them usefully. Auth, default scope, and determinism are all covered; the only minor gap is failure behavior (e.g., unauthenticated or user with no CV), which is not described.

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%, and the cv_id schema entry already explains that omitting it scores the primary CV and that ids come from list_my_cvs. The description restates the same default behavior without adding format or constraint detail, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource (score the signed-in user's CV), states the score range and the fact that it uses fixed rules rather than AI, and enumerates the outputs (per-criterion score, suggestions, edit link). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_cv (retrieval) and match_cv (job matching).

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 clearly establishes the usage context: sign-in is required, and the tool defaults to the primary CV unless a cv_id for another of the user's CVs is supplied. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over match_cv or get_application_insights, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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