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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /0/candidates/{id}) and the shape of the returned payload, which is useful, but it says nothing about behavior for unknown ids (404 vs empty) or permission scoping.

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 short fragments, zero filler, and the identifying clause ('One candidate by id') is front-loaded ahead of the field list and endpoint. Every element earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates well by listing the fields returned and citing the REST endpoint. For a simple one-parameter read, the only real gap is unspecified error/not-found behavior.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Taleez candidate id.'), the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond confirming the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('One candidate by id') and enumerates the fields returned (name, mail, phone, language, location, social links, unit, CV link, custom properties). The singular 'one candidate by id' cleanly separates it from the sibling list_candidates and the update/create variants.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a candidate_id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over taleez_list_candidates, taleez_get_candidate_properties, or the other get_candidate_* siblings that also take a candidate id.

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