hires_get_candidate_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return fields (uuid, absolute download URL, relative_time, file metadata, type), notes Bearer authentication for the URL, and explains the effect of include='text_content'. It doesn't mention potential errors or absence of a resume, but for a GET operation this is solid.

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: the first states the main action and return fields, the second explains the optional parameter. It is front-loaded, without unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly. It covers the main resource, return fields, auth requirement, and optional behavior. For a tool with only 2 parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, so both id and include are already described. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the effect of include='text_content' (adds a `text` field without downloading) and clarifies the return structure. This goes beyond the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Get the primary resume for a candidate.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('primary resume'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_candidate_files or get_candidate.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to fetch the primary resume) and even explains the optional include parameter for getting parsed text content. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' component.

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