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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context on top: pagination is one-page-at-a-time with a hard 100 cap, and the records contain personal data fields. It does not mention ordering, total counts, or rate limits, so it stops short of 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 short sentences, zero filler: scope first, then the returned fields, then pagination, then the sibling routing. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete — it even enumerates the returned fields in the absence of an output schema. Minor gap: no mention of next_page/total-count signaling in the reply, though the schema hints at it.

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 both `page` and `per_page` are already fully documented in the schema (including the next_page chaining hint). The description only restates the 100-per-page ceiling, which the schema already enforces via maximum: 100 — baseline 3.

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+resource (list candidates) plus the shape of what is returned (name, emails, address, employer, skills, notes) and the underlying endpoint GET /candidates. It is clearly distinguishable from the get_* and search_* siblings at a glance.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for targeted lookups: 'Use cats_search_candidates or cats_filter_candidates to find specific people.' That names both alternatives and the condition that selects them, leaving this tool as the browse-everything option.

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