validate_cv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and exceeds it: it implies read-only checking, reassures about safety, and details the nature of the report (issue location plus close code-list suggestions). This gives the agent a realistic expectation of the tool's behavior.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds safety and output specifics. Every sentence contributes value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description plus schema fully covers usage timing, validation behavior, and report content. There are no missing pieces an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 schema already fully describes draft_id with a pointer to create_cv, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Check the draft against the Europass schema') and outcome ('report what is wrong'), clearly distinguishing this validation tool from the sibling create/modify/export/lookup tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says the tool is safe to call at any point and that unfinished CVs are expected to have issues, giving the agent clear context on when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool offers validation, so no exclusion is necessary.

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