list_variants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' only restates that. However, without an output schema the description usefully discloses that the resolution is pre-computed ('extends already applied') and what comes back ('own', 'unused_bullets'), which the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by usage routing and return shape. Slightly dense with backtick-laden field names, but every sentence carries information.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call it, and the merged/resolved return structure including derived fields. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 single 'profile' parameter is fully documented with its default fallback in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read every CV variant') and adds scope detail that distinguishes it: 'extends already applied' and 'the text of each bullet it uses'. An agent can tell this apart from save_variant, build_cv or score_job immediately.

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?

Explicitly names three sibling tools (save_variant, build_cv, score_job) as the operations to precede and states the reason ('to know what each CV contains'). This is direct when-to-use routing rather than inferred context.

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