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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing what each note carries (replies, author admin_id, visibility), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth/company scoping.

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?

One front-loaded sentence describing purpose and returned fields, plus a compact endpoint reference. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned note fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (pagination and ordering behavior for a list operation), so it is close to complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents candidate_id fully. The description adds no extra meaning (format, source, or constraints) beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('List') and resource ('notes on a candidate's profile') and even names the underlying endpoint, GET /c/{company_id}/candidates/{candidate_id}/notes. Together with the name it clearly separates the read counterpart from the sibling recruitee_add_candidate_note.

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 description says what is listed but never says when to reach for it versus alternatives such as recruitee_get_candidate or recruitee_list_evaluations, nor any prerequisite (e.g. needing a valid candidate_id from a prior lookup). Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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