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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the anonymization guarantee, enumerates what is NOT returned (email/name/salary/resume), and specifies the returned shape (opaque id, coarse profile, 0–100 score, privacy-safe facts). It stops short of auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are stable across calls.

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 the employer framing and immediately followed by the privacy contract, which is the highest-value information. Dense but no wasted clauses; the parenthetical PII list earns its space.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain return values on its own, and it does so specifically. What is missing is behavioral context on result limits beyond the schema's 1–25 note and the relationship to sibling candidate tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and each parameter is already documented with examples. The description does add one genuine constraint not expressible in the schema — that at least one of query/skills/roles must be supplied despite zero required params — but otherwise adds little beyond the schema.

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: return a ranked, anonymized shortlist of consented candidates matching a role. Scope and audience (employer) are clear. It never names talent_search or buy_dataset, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation from the closest sibling.

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?

Establishes employer context and a hard precondition ("Provide at least one of query/skills/roles"), which is real usage guidance. But it gives no when-to-use-this-vs-talent_search guidance and no exclusions, so routing between candidate-matching siblings 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.