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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions server-side filtering and that results include placements and stage information, but lacks details on pagination, sort, limits, or response structure. Some transparency, but incomplete.

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 three sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence is somewhat tautological but the second and third provide value. It is concise and front-loaded with the core 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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers only two filtering options and does not address pagination, sorting, output format, or the meaning of parameters like query_json or path_params. The agent would need to infer much from the tool's name or trial.

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 only 40%. The description adds meaning for created_after and hints at candidate_search filters_json, but the latter is not a parameter in the schema and the description does not explain how to use it within query_json. Other crucial parameters like page, sort, limit, cursor, and detail_profile are left unexplained.

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 states 'List candidates' and adds that results include placements and stage information, clarifying the output. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_candidate_search', though the distinction is implied by the filtering guidance.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use created_after for created-date filtering and suggests using candidate_search (a sibling tool) for last_activity_at or updated_at searches, effectively guiding when NOT to use this tool.

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