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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest. It usefully discloses that the endpoint and the set of applicable parameters change depending on whether candidate_id is present — material behavior beyond what annotations state. It does not describe pagination or return envelope behavior, which keeps it from 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?

Two dense sentences with the core capability and the mode split front-loaded. The inline REST paths add disambiguation value but are slightly heavy for a listing tool, keeping it just under a 5.

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 8 optional params and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and by clarifying which params are inert in candidate mode. What remains thin is sorting/paging behavior and any indication of result size limits.

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's description already carries the '(company list only)' qualifier, so baseline is 3. The description consolidates the same information ('only `status` applies') but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema.

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 enumerates the fields returned (title, description, due date, completed, candidate_id). It also splits the operation into two clearly named modes, which separates it from siblings like recruitee_create_task.

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 explicit conditional routing: when candidate_id is supplied, only `status` applies; otherwise the company-level scope/assignee/sorting/paging parameters apply. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool for a given situation, but the mode selection is unambiguous.

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