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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what content is returned and gives no guidance on side effects, default language behavior, candidate resolution, auth needs, or output format.

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 with the core purpose and usage hint. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 simple two-optional-parameter lookup, the description conveys the main purpose and when to use it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not clarify default behavior when lang or candidate are null, or what the returned answers look like.

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%, and the schema already documents lang with allowed values and candidate as a slug from search_candidates, including the personal-mode caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond its general purpose, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a candidate's answers to common recruiter questions, and it names the specific resource (candidate FAQ). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_* tools, but the meaning is distinct enough.

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 'check here before writing to him' gives a concrete trigger for when to call this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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