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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Prefer size <= 10' behavioral hint, which is useful for performance expectations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as default pagination, result ordering, or whether filters are ANDed/ORed. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 plus a short pagination hint, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core action and filter dimensions. It earns its place without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by separating the pagination hint, but it is appropriately concise.

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 read-only list tool with 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the default view behavior, how filters combine, or what the response contains. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, but an agent might still be uncertain about pagination defaults and filter semantics. Given the tool's complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 62%, so the schema documents many parameters (q, email, view, include, linkedin, stage_id, created_after, updated_after). The description adds a high-level summary of filter dimensions but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for most parameters. The 'Prefer size <= 10' is a useful hint for the size parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 a clear verb ('List') and resource ('candidates') and enumerates the filter dimensions (job, stage, email, name, LinkedIn, dates). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on candidate search/filtering, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The title 'Search candidates' reinforces the purpose.

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 usage context: it is a search/list operation with multiple optional filters, and the 'Prefer size <= 10' gives a pagination hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hires_list_applications or hires_get_candidate, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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