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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing the return fields (uuid, download url, file metadata, type), which is especially valuable because no output schema exists. It also clarifies that resumes are included in the list.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence communicates the resource, scope, and key return fields without any filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, single-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. The field list partially compensates for the missing output schema, though it leaves some ambiguity around 'file metadata' and download URL behavior such as expiration or authentication requirements.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Candidate id or alias'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a candidate's files'), and further scopes it to 'resume and other documents'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like hires_get_candidate_resume and hires_list_application_attachments.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as hires_get_candidate_resume, hires_download_attachment, or hires_list_application_attachments. The description implies a general listing use case but provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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