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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no details about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return format. The term 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that this is read-only or disclose any behavioral constraints.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence being clear and front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat ambiguous but still concise, so it does not waste words.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the meaning of the analysis types, the behavior of the 'include' parameter, or when a different detail_profile should be used, limiting the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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?

The schema covers 80% of parameters with descriptions for id, query_json, path_params, and detail_profile, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter guidance, and the 'include' parameter remains undocumented in both the description and 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 opens with 'Get one candidate,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. The follow-up phrase 'Candidates for stale-candidate, source-quality, ownership, and follow-up analysis' adds a usage scope, distinguishing this tool from generic list candidates.

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 analysis use cases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_candidates. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the decision to the agent.

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