Read how the resume's experience was understood

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the burden is lighter, and the description layers on real value: the three status states with their meanings, the fact that data is parsed from page layout, and that a count is returned for bullets whose extracted position disagrees with the layout. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the domain-specific caveats are unusually informative.

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?

Effectively two sentences, front-loaded with the return shape and then the status semantics. Dense but every clause carries meaning; slightly heavy for a single paragraph, though nothing is padding.

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?

The tool is parameterless and read-only, with an output schema present, so the description need not restate return values. It still proactively explains the grouping model, residual anomalies, and the polling implication of 'pending', leaving no gap an agent must guess at before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it does not invent or confuse any input contract.

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 (returns the account's main resume) and adds precise scope: 'grouped by role' with employer, title, location, dates, bullets, plus orphaned achievements and an anomaly count. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_resume, upload_resume, or get_resume_download_link.

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?

There is no explicit routing against alternatives (e.g., versus get_generated_resumes or edit_resume), but the description does give operational guidance for the pending state ('still being read; call again shortly') and defines when 'unavailable' applies. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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