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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by specifying default ordering and the pagination contract (next offset = offset + limit). It doesn't state response shape, page-item structure, or rate limits, but for a read-only list the added pagination contract is substantive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default ordering, then filters and pagination. The trailing API endpoint note is compact and no sentence is redundant.

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 9-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant concerns: filtering options, ordering, and pagination. It leaves out the 'sort' alternative and any hint of the returned item structure, which are minor given the schema documents every parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by spelling out the pagination arithmetic (next offset = offset + limit), which the offset/limit descriptions do not explain, though it omits mention of the 'sort' option (by_last_message) that the schema exposes.

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 and resource ('List candidates') plus scope details: default ordering (newest first) and the full set of narrowing options. It does not differentiate from the close sibling recruitee_search_candidates, whose function overlaps with the 'name/job search' filter described here, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for use: enumerates the narrowing conditions (one job, name/job search, qualified/disqualified, specific ids, created after a date) and explains pagination mechanics. It never states when to prefer this over recruitee_search_candidates or recruitee_get_candidate, so no exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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