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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a useful return contract ('total_count and items') and mentions scope/endpoint, but 'Scope: employee' and 'GET /employees/' are opaque for a candidates tool and no pagination defaults or permission details are explained.

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 short and front-loaded, first stating the operation and capabilities, then the return shape. The terse 'Scope: employee. GET /employees/.' fragments are ambiguous and do not clearly earn their 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?

Given the fully documented schema and read-only annotation, the description supplies the key return information ('total_count and items') and operation scope. It does not explain item structure or sibling routing, but it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema fully documents page, sort, filter, and page_size including comparison operators and sort direction enum. The description adds filter field examples such as name and lastname, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List candidates in the ATS') and names the supported capabilities (paging, filters, sort). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as traffit_list_job_candidates or traffit_list_stage_candidates, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied: call this to list candidates with paging, filtering, and sorting. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like traffit_get_candidate for single records or traffit_list_job_candidates for job-scoped listings.

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