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 the API scope and endpoint path, but does not mention pagination, sorting, filtering behavior, or return format beyond what the schema already documents.

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 two short sentences plus the endpoint path, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It could more explicitly clarify the relationship to sibling list tools, but otherwise it is sufficient.

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 all parameters including `job_id`, `page`, `sort`, `filter`, and `page_size` are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list candidates attached to one job. This distinguishes it from the general `traffit_list_candidates` sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with `traffit_list_stage_candidates`.

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 phrase 'attached to one job' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as `traffit_list_candidates` or `traffit_list_stage_candidates`.

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