get_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes the authentication and paid-access requirements, which are essential for the agent to know before invoking. It does not describe error behavior or side effects, but for a simple read operation the auth context is the key behavioral trait.

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?

The description is a short two-sentence structure, with the core purpose front-loaded and the auth requirement immediately following. Every sentence adds value with no redundant phrasing. It is concise without sacrificing essential context.

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?

Given no output schema and a simple get operation, the description covers the main purpose and auth needs, but it omits expected behavior details such as the default return format (summary vs raw) or error handling for invalid resume IDs. The raw parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description, so the agent may not know when to set it. This leaves some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 100%, meaning the description of both parameters (raw and resume_id) is already in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters—it only says 'full resume details,' which does not clarify the role of the 'raw' flag or the format. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema is complete.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full resume details' and enumerates what is included (experience, education, skills, contacts). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from siblings like search_resumes which are search-focused rather than retrieval of a specific resume.

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 mentions a critical prerequisite (EMPLOYER OAuth token and paid access) that guides when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly address when to choose this over alternatives like get_vacancy or search_resumes. It implies the need for a resume ID but lacks exclusions or direct comparison to sibling tools.

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