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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (`hits` with placements and stage, plus `total`) and the fact that it is a pass-through to the underlying GET /search/new/candidates engine. It stops short of 5 because pagination behavior and hit caps are only implied via the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then progressively more specific detail (query semantics, filter examples, return shape, raw endpoint). No filler sentences, though the trailing API endpoint reference is of marginal value to an agent and the filter examples make the block dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, naming `hits`, nested placements (job + current stage), and `total`. Combined with the filter syntax guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, yet the description goes well beyond it: it enumerates which fields `query` actually searches (name, emails, phones, tags, sources, job assignments, stage, cover letter, CV), and gives four concrete `filters` shapes including the Unix-seconds convention for created_at and the two filter-object variants (field/eq vs filter/id.in). This is exactly the kind of syntax detail the schema's `additionalProperties: {}` leaves open.

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 ('Search the company's candidates') and clarifies it uses Recruitee's native search engine. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling recruitee_list_candidates, which an agent could plausibly pick instead, 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?

Usage is implied by the presence of `query` and `filters` (use this for filtered/free-text search), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and the obvious alternative (recruitee_list_candidates) is never named or excluded.

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