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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: no reviewed vendor identity or canonical join, no verified price, documentation unreviewed, vendor integrations untested, and only the retained current observation is available. That is genuinely useful limitation disclosure beyond the annotations, though the phrasing is occasionally opaque.

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 core action is front-loaded correctly and the passage is not bloated, but several sentences are cryptic jargon ("Complete declarations appear once in interfaces; matched/guide entries are explicit local references") that an agent cannot easily act on, weakening value density.

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 9-parameter tool with a conditional schema and no output schema, the description covers input rejection and several contract limitations but never characterizes the response content, which it must do in the absence of an output schema. Adequate but with a clear gap on return-value expectations.

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 67%, above the midpoint, and the schema itself already documents id, locale, language, pricingPart, pricingOffset and pricingSnapshotSha256. The description reinforces the id rejection rule and the current-observation-only/paging constraint but says nothing about fields, pricing, or interfaceId, leaving part of the 9-param contract unaddressed. Baseline 3 fits.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb and resource ("Read one exact selected candidate ID"), which is better than a tautology. However, the remaining sentences are dense caveats that obscure what is actually returned, and the description never distinguishes this candidate-lane tool from its plain sibling get_software. An agent can guess the purpose but not cleanly separate it from the near-identical sibling.

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?

It provides real when-not guidance by listing rejected inputs (upstream names, aliases, outside-selection IDs, historical ID aliases) and stating historical batch queries are not accepted. But it never names an alternative tool (e.g. candidate_search_software for finding IDs), so routing guidance is only implied.

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