cv_render

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

With only readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotated, the description carries the important behavioral payload: the return is a base64 resource of type application/pdf, the bytes are large, and they are not model-readable. That last point is exactly the kind of operational warning an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 sentences, zero filler, with purpose and output format front-loaded before the anti-use caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 render tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value story (base64 PDF resource, large payload) and warns against introspection — nothing an agent needs before calling is absent.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema description already covers it fully (source via cv_tailor/cv_list, URL form, 'never construct or guess'). The description adds nothing about the id, so this sits at the 100%-coverage baseline.

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: 'Render a tailored CV to an ATS PDF,' which unambiguously differs from cv_tailor (produce the CV) and cv_get (fetch the CV). It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed to it.

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?

'call it to produce the deliverable, not to inspect content' gives an explicit when-to-use and a clear when-not-to-use, with the inverse (inspection) implied toward cv_get/cv_context. It stops short of naming the alternative tool for the inspection case.

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