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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequence an agent needs: calling twice without a mail produces two duplicate candidates, and no notification e-mail is dispatched. The unique-mail constraint and the POST endpoint are extra operational context; only the response shape is left unexplained.

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?

Four tight sentences led by a 'WRITE:' marker, with the required-field and uniqueness constraints front-loaded before the non-idempotency warning. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct fact.

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 10-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behaviors (duplicates, no e-mail, no job link). It never says what the call returns (presumably the created candidate and its id), which is the one thing an agent cannot infer from a missing output schema.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented; the description reinforces the required first/last name and the company-wide uniqueness of mail, both of which the schema already states. It adds no guidance on the nested location object, lang default, or unit_id/recruiter_id usage, so baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('add a new candidate to the Taleez database') and immediately scopes it against siblings by stating the record is created without a job attachment, which separates it from taleez_add_candidates_to_job and taleez_update_candidate.

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 'Creates a record only: the candidate is not attached to a job and no e-mail is sent by this call' clause tells the agent when this tool is insufficient and points implicitly at the add-to-job flow. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state prerequisites such as account permissions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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