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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the returned fields (file names and upload dates), the 'Scope: employee' permission framing, and the underlying GET path. It stops short of stating pagination or empty-result behavior.

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 compact fragments with zero filler: the payload is front-loaded, then scope, then the endpoint. Nothing to trim.

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 safety and the return fields named inline, an agent has everything needed to call it. Minor gap: no mention of result size limits or what happens when the candidate has no files.

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 and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('The candidate id (numeric id)'). The description's 'one candidate' merely confirms the same binding, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (list) plus the exact resource (files of one candidate) and even the shape of the returned data (file names and upload dates). A reader can distinguish it instantly from sibling endpoints like get_candidate_activities or get_candidate_tags.

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 by the phrase 'of one candidate' – it is clear this operates on a single candidate rather than listing across candidates, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for related needs (e.g., activities or jobs for the same candidate).

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