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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns exact rows (not fuzzy matches), includes a total count, pages of 50, and requires following next_cursor for more. It also discloses that filter values must be ISO dates or option slugs, which is a behavioral constraint not visible in annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior is in the first sentence, usage examples follow, and the alternative tool is named. Every sentence earns its place—no filler, no repetition of schema details. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and rich schema.

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?

Given the output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: what it returns, how to filter/sort, where to get field identifiers, pagination behavior, and when to use a sibling instead. The only minor gap is not explaining the total count's position in the response, but the output schema covers that.

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 description coverage is 50%, so the schema documents some parameters (limit, cursor, fields, filters partially) but not all. The description compensates by explaining that field ids and custom-field slugs come from describe_fields, that filter values must be ISO dates or option slugs, and that pages are 50 with next_cursor for pagination. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't enumerate every parameter's semantics.

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 specific verb ('Returns exact rows'), a resource ('one record type'), and the key capabilities (structured filters, sorts, total count). It also distinguishes itself from search_candidates by explicitly saying it is for structured criteria, not fuzzy/CV-content. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_records and search_candidates.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples ('open contract jobs in Sydney', 'candidates whose notice period is one month') and explicitly names the alternative for fuzzy/CV-content criteria ('use search_candidates'). It also tells the agent where to get field ids and custom-field slugs (describe_fields), which is essential for correct invocation.

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