list_resume_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it declares ordering, the FILTER -> SORT -> LIMIT pipeline, that the tool NEVER raises, and that results contain summaries rather than resume text. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements, but the error-free contract and payload shape are disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then a compact pipeline note and Args/Returns blocks. The Args/Returns headings add a little structural overhead but every sentence carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, this covers ordering, filtering, pipeline order, failure contract, and payload granularity. The return-format sentence slightly duplicates the output schema, but no agent-critical detail 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies that job_id is an exact-match link filter and that limit is applied after sorting. This meaningfully exceeds the bare 'integer/string' types in the schema, though it doesn't state limit's default or bounds.

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 ('Return stored resume versions'), plus the default ordering (newest-first) and the optional-filter scope. An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_resume_version (single item) and save_resume_version (write) without opening any schema.

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 explains the one filter condition ('job_id: when provided, only versions linked to this exact job id are returned'), which implies when the parameter is useful, but it never states when to prefer this tool over get_resume_version or how it relates to list_jobs. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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