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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: it discloses that resume and cover letter text is conditionally present only if the account enables it, and it warns that candidate_supplied_text is untrusted author-written content to be treated as data, not instructions. It does not cover error behavior for a missing or out-of-scope candidate_id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and payload, followed by the conditional field and the safety note. Each sentence contributes something, though the prompt-injection sentence is slightly verbose in phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the conditional candidate_supplied_text field. For a read-only single-record fetch with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single candidate_id parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for the ID, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one candidate') and enumerates the returned fields (contact details, job, stage, rating, tags), which lets an agent distinguish it from search_candidates by the singular, ID-based nature of the fetch. It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must already have a candidate_id and want a full record for one candidate. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion pointing to search_candidates when only an ID is unknown, and no guidance for the not-found case.

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