get_saved_resume_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, which is useful, and the verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error conditions, or rate limiting, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the essential auth note, both of which earn their place.

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 simple read-by-id tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the operation and auth requirement, and the schema covers the raw/summary distinction. It could mention what a saved resume search is or common error cases, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is present in the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('saved resume search') plus the identifier ('by id'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_saved_resume_searches, though the singular nature is implied.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_saved_resume_searches or search_resumes. The only extra note, 'Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN', is a prerequisite rather than usage context, so an agent receives no decision support.

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