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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the payload is 'recruiter-safe' and deliberately omits phone/email, and visibility is gated on recruiter access — useful for understanding return shape and possible access failures. It does not discuss pagination or what an empty result means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; contents and constraints arrive before the sourcing note. The nested parenthetical makes it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers contents, redaction, and visibility preconditions adequately. Minor gap: it never says what happens if the candidate is not visible to the recruiter (error vs. empty).

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% and both parameters are described there (candidateProfileId sourced from find_candidates or applicants, jobId as optional job context). The description echoes the find_candidates sourcing but adds no format, ID-style, or behavioral detail about how jobId changes results, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs the resource (candidate profile) with the returned fields (summary, skills, experience, education) and names its source relationship to find_candidates, so an agent knows what it retrieves versus the search tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like list_applicants, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: it names find_candidates and applicants as the origin of the ID and notes the profile must be recruiter-visible, which gives context on when a call will succeed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative for a similar lookup.

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