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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with the 'metadata only, contents never downloaded' scope limit and the underlying endpoint, telling the agent what will not happen as a result of the call.

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?

Two terse sentences plus an endpoint line, front-loaded with what is returned before the scope caveat. Nothing is padded; the endpoint snippet is marginally redundant with the tool name but cheap and clarifying.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly enumerates the returned fields, and pagination is fully handled by the schema. For a low-complexity read tool with rich annotations, this is nearly all an agent needs; only routing against sibling list tools is absent.

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%: page, per_page and candidate_id all carry descriptions including defaults and the next_page chaining hint. The description adds only the path shape GET /candidates/{id}/attachments, which lightly reinforces that candidate_id is a path identifier, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (a candidate's attachments) and enumerates the exact data returned (file names, sizes, resume flag), so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like cats_list_candidate_activities, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and the 'metadata only: file contents are never downloaded' constraint, which usefully tells the agent this is not a download endpoint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer cats_get_candidate or other list siblings, and no prerequisite guidance.

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