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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds that results are paged and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about matching/ranking behavior, empty-result handling, or rate limits, so it adds only modest context.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation stated first and the pagination note second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple (3 fully documented params, no output schema, annotations covering safety) and the description covers the essentials plus pagination. It could still note ordering/relevance of results, but that is a minor gap for a search endpoint this straightforward.

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%, so query, page and per_page are already fully documented in the schema, including the useful 'Pass the previous reply's next_page' hint. The description adds only the word 'paged' and the endpoint path, which is no real value beyond the structured fields.

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 pair ('free-text search over candidates') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, email, skills, resume text), which clearly separates it from structured listing tools. It does not name the sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer the distinction from cats_filter_candidates and cats_list_candidates on its own.

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?

The phrase 'free-text search' implies usage versus the filter/list siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no guidance on choosing between this and cats_filter_candidates or cats_list_candidates. Usage 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.