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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: candidates contain personal data restricted to the user's own recruiting, custom properties are omitted unless with_props is set, and the returned fields are listed. Pagination behavior is left 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?

The description is front-loaded and compact, with the field list and usage notes packed into a few lines. The endpoint suffix is mildly redundant but still contextual and not wasteful.

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, the description compensates by listing returned fields. It also covers privacy constraints and the with_props behavior. Pagination and page-size details are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description still adds value by clarifying that e-mail filtering is exact and intended to find one person, and by reinforcing that custom properties require with_props.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('List the candidates in the company') and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_pool_candidates or get_candidate, though the company-wide scope is clear.

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?

It gives useful hints: filter by exact e-mail to find one person, and use with_props for custom properties. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this list tool versus get_candidate or the pool-specific list tools, leaving alternatives implicit.

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