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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: candidates are hard-excluded when must_include terms are absent, results are ranked with snippets, calls are bounded to 50, and total_count reports the total matched. No contradiction with 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 with the core purpose, then moves to usage guidance, behavioral details, alternatives, and constraints. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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 and annotations cover safety, the description supplies most operational context: search scope, filtering, must_include behavior, ranking/snippets, pagination limit, and total_count. The only notable omission is guidance on choosing among mode values, which are not described anywhere else.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates well for must_include (hard-exclusion semantics) and filters (status, location, owner, custom fields). It also reinforces the limit bound. However, the mode parameter (hybrid/semantic/exact) is left entirely to the schema, so the description does not fully cover all parameter meaning.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: finding candidates by meaning across profile, CV text, recruiter notes, and call/meeting summaries. It also distinguishes itself from exact structured lookup tools by explicitly naming list_records as the alternative.

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 states when to use the tool ('skills, experience, background, or things a candidate said'), how to narrow results with filters, and when NOT to use it ('Use list_records instead for exact structured lookups'). The must_include guidance also gives concrete conditional usage.

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