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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by naming the return fields and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about behavior when the candidate has no custom properties, an unknown id, or whether values are typed differently per choice vs free-text.

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?

One clause describing the payload plus the endpoint path, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields. No filler, though the raw endpoint reference adds little for an agent that won't call HTTP directly.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, describing the returned field set is essentially the remaining burden, and it does that. Minor gaps (empty-property case, error behavior) are acceptable for this complexity level.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Taleez candidate id.'). The description adds no further meaning about id semantics or scope, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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: returns the custom property values of one candidate, and even enumerates the returned fields (property id, name key, type, value or choices). This distinguishes it implicitly from list_candidate_properties and set_candidate_properties, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus taleez_list_candidate_properties (property definitions) or taleez_get_candidate (full candidate record). The agent must infer from the name which of the several candidate-scoped getters to pick.

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