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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so safety adds little. The description contributes the dependency on an existing batch (you cannot list candidates without first resolving a screening) and that results are 'bounded' summaries rather than full records. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what filters change the result set.

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 the capability stated first and the prerequisite second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and half the parameters (limit, offset, status) carry no meaning anywhere. Given that this is the primary candidate-listing entry point in a 5-parameter tool, the description should at least note that results are paginated and that status narrows the listing.

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 only 20%, with just workspaceId documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for batchId by stating where to obtain it (list_batches), but limit, offset and the seven-value status filter are left entirely unexplained in both places.

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 (List) and resource (candidate summaries) and scopes it to a selected workspace screening, which separates it from read-only siblings like get_candidate, list_candidate_comments or list_ats_candidates. The qualifier 'bounded' signals a paginated, summary-level listing, though it never names a sibling explicitly for contrast.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: resolve the screening with list_batches first, which is the real gating step before this call can succeed and points to a specific sibling tool. It does not state when to prefer this over get_candidate or list_candidate_reviews, so exclusions are absent.

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