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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds the returned field set and the underlying endpoint, plus the fact that disabled properties may be relevant. Pagination mechanics are left entirely to 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?

Two short sentences plus a bare endpoint reference, with the resource and its fields front-loaded and nothing redundant. 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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and parameter behavior is covered by a 100%-covered schema. The main residual gap is the missing distinction from taleez_get_candidate_properties, which an agent could easily confuse with this listing tool.

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%, so page, page_size, and with_disabled are already fully documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning for them — the word 'disabled' in the returned-field list hints at the with_disabled flag but never explains the default exclusion behavior.

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 the resource precisely ('custom candidate properties defined in the account') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, choices, disabled), which separates it from taleez_list_job_properties. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('list' only appears in the title), and it never contrasts with taleez_get_candidate_properties, the closest sibling.

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 forward reference 'Use the ids with taleez_set_candidate_properties' gives a concrete downstream use, which is real guidance. But there is no when-to-use vs when-not framing and no disambiguation from taleez_get_candidate_properties, so an agent must infer the split between the two.

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