get_resume

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the burden on the description is lower. The phrase 'полное тело' usefully signals that the full payload is returned rather than a summary, but nothing is said about error behavior, permissions, or what happens when the id is missing or cross-account.

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 short sentence with the scope indicator front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for the agent's needs.

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 no output schema, the description should convey what 'full body' contains, and it does not. Still, the tool is a simple single-record read with fully documented required parameters and a readOnly annotation, so the essential calling information is present; the gaps are about expectations of the returned payload.

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 all three parameters (account_id, applicant_id, external_id) are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only reinforces that the resume is identified by its external id; it adds no format, range, or relationship detail beyond 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?

The description names a specific resource (a single resume), a specific scope ('полное тело' / full body rather than a summary), and the qualifier 'external', which aligns with the external_id parameter in the schema. It clearly signals single-item retrieval rather than a listing, though it never names a sibling such as get_applicant_resumes to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of an alternative tool. The only hint about context comes from the schema's note that external_id is obtained 'from get_applicant_resumes', which is structured-field information rather than description guidance.

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