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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: the output is a rendered card set with interactive affordances (add to job, open in Kepler), and it constrains inputs to ids obtained from a prior read in the same conversation. It stops short of describing pagination or failure modes, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what renders, then routing guidance, then the hard prerequisite. Each sentence carries distinct information and none is padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be re-explained, yet the description still tells the agent what visually appears on the cards. Combined with annotation-covered safety and the stated id-provenance constraint, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, and the description adds the item bound ('1-12 candidates', matching minItems/maxItems) and the fact that job_id toggles stage display and the 'Add to job' action, plus the provenance requirement for candidate_ids. The title parameter's purpose (card heading) is only covered by the schema, which keeps this from being a 5.

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 verb and resource ('Shows 1-12 candidates... as compact cards') and enumerates exactly what each card contains, including the job_id-dependent stage field. An agent can distinguish it from search_candidates, get_job_matches and list_records without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('after search_candidates, get_job_matches or list_records found the people'), explicit when-not ('Do not use it to search'), plus a prerequisite ('Requires exact candidate ids from a read in this conversation') and a presentation rule ('do not repeat the card's contents in prose'). Nothing is left to inference.

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