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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path and candidate scoping; it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, auth, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the structured fields already provide.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words and a front-loaded resource statement. It is efficient, though the endpoint restatement adds limited value beyond the tool name and 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is listed and the endpoint. However, it does not explain return values or usage context, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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 100%, and all three parameters are documented in the input schema, including page, per_page, and candidate_id. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, so the baseline of 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 states the resource and scope precisely: tasks attached to a candidate, reinforced by the endpoint GET /candidates/{id}/tasks. It is clearly distinct from broader siblings like cats_list_tasks, though it does not explicitly use the verb 'list' and relies on the tool name/title for that.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cats_list_tasks or cats_get_task, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The context is only implied by the resource name and endpoint.

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