search_resumes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that response includes pagination details (total_count, items, has_more, next_offset, message), which is useful but does not disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits or caching. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists response fields. Front-loaded and no wasted words. Efficient structure.

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?

With output schema present (hidden), description covers pagination response well. For a general search tool, it is sufficiently complete. Could optionally mention which document types are searched (implied by 'all documents' but not explicit).

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it remains generic. No parameter-specific elaboration.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search across all documents for a keyword or phrase.' 'All documents' distinguishes it from sibling 'search_resumes_by_skill' which focuses on skill-based search. Also mentions pagination fields in response, adding specificity.

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?

Description implies usage for keyword/phrase search across all documents, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'search_resumes_by_skill' or list tools. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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