Resume / CV PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: the bullet-detection rule for leading '-', '•', '*', '–', comma-separated skills, the one-page target with overflow to a second page, and English/Latin-only constraints. It does not describe the returned result object or write-failure 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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose before detailing templates and formatting rules. Most sentences carry information, though the trailing web link and the 'Latin text only for now' aside could be trimmed.

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 12-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, template semantics, section ordering, and text formatting rules well. It falls slightly short on where the PDF ends up and on the base64 return option, which the schema mentions only briefly.

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 around 50%, and the description usefully fills the biggest gaps: it names the three templates and describes what each one looks like visually, which the bare enum in the schema does not, and it explains the bullet convention for description lines and the comma-separated skills form. Remaining parameters such as accent, returnBase64, and output are left entirely to the schema.

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: turning structured CV fields into an A4 resume PDF, and enumerates the sections it renders. This clearly separates it from generic conversion siblings like ai_markdown_to_pdf or ai_create_pptx, since the input is a structured CV, not markdown.

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 framing implies usage (structured CV fields in, resume PDF out), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no named alternative for the generic 'I have markdown, make a PDF' case. The web-version link is reference material, not guidance.

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