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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation slash readOnlyHint true destructiveHint false. The description does not add behavioral details beyond 'List', such as whether values are localized, ordered, or filtered.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence: 'List candidate origin values.' It contains no filler and immediately conveys the operation.

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 zero-parameter read-only enumeration tool, the description is nearly complete. It does not state the return shape, but no output schema is provided and the intent is clear enough for an agent to call it. Slight ambiguity remains about what 'origin values' includes, but the risk is low.

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 tool has zero parameters kuning. Since the schema is empty, there are no parameter semantics to clarify, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description fully covers what the agent needs to invoke it.

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 action ('List') and a specific resource ('candidate origin values'), so an agent can infer the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the many other list_* sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer that 'origins' is a distinct enum domain.

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 alternatives like hires_list_sources or hires_list_statuses. The description implies a simple lookup but provides no context for selecting it over similar list tools.

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