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

readOnlyHint already declares this a safe read. The description goes beyond that by naming the underlying Recruitee endpoints and disclosing the parameter-applicability rule for each mode, which the annotations do not cover. It stops short of describing pagination defaults or result ordering guarantees, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields before the mode-dependent branching and endpoint references. No filler, and parenthetical endpoint details are tucked away rather than cluttering the primary instruction.

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 an 8-parameter, no-required-args list tool with no output schema, the description covers both modes, the returned field set, and which parameters are honored where. It omits pagination behavior and default ordering, which would matter for an agent assembling multi-page reads, keeping it just short of fully complete.

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 each parameter already carries a 'company list only' note, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces which parameters apply in which mode but adds no format, default, or inter-parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recruiting tasks') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (title, description, due date, completed, candidate_id). It also crisply separates the two retrieval modes (per-candidate vs company-wide), so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from a single-path list tool.

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 states the branch condition: pass candidate_id to get one candidate's tasks, omit it to get company tasks. Critically, it warns that in candidate mode 'only `status` applies', preventing the agent from sending scope/sort/page to an endpoint that ignores them. That is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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