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 safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the tool is plan-gated, i.e. requires an entitlement — but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what 'contacted' status entails.

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?

One short sentence with the resource clause front-loaded and the plan gate appended. No filler, though the two-in-one phrase 'shortlisted and contacted' is slightly compressed and could be parsed as two separate result groups.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back; it mentions 'scores' but not the shape of shortlist vs contacted entries or whether both are always present. It is adequate for a simple one-parameter read but leaves return-value interpretation partly implicit.

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 jobId parameter, which is already documented as an optional job filter. The description restates that in prose without adding format, ID-source, or default-behavior details; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Shortlisted and contacted candidates with scores, optionally for one job.' An agent knows exactly what entity set is returned, though it doesn't name which sibling to prefer when unfiltered listing of applicants is also wanted.

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?

'Optionally for one job' implicitly tells the agent how to narrow the result set, and 'Plan-gated' signals a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings like list_applicants or shortlist_candidate.

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