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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe, or destructive. It also omits information about pagination, response structure, or any limitations (e.g., how many results are returned by default). The schema shows pagination parameters (cursor, per_page), but the description does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 single sentence of 15 words, which is concise. However, it sacrifices important details that would improve usability (e.g., return format, pagination). It is not well-structured to front-load critical information; it merely states the basic purpose.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value (e.g., list of attribute objects), how pagination works, or how it relates to other list tools. A more complete description would include behavioral context and usage examples.

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?

All 7 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema provides the necessary information. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'candidate attributes configured on jobs', specifying that these define evaluation criteria. It implies a job-specific scope, which helps differentiate it from siblings like list_candidate_attribute_types (which lists attribute types, not job-specific associations). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other closely related tools like list_focus_candidate_attributes.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to retrieve evaluation criteria for candidates on a specific job, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_candidate_attribute_types, list_focus_candidate_attributes). No when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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