hires_get_candidate

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. However, it only states the retrieval action ('Get') and does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or details about the return structure beyond the high-level mention of application summaries. It is a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundant phrases or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context by naming the resource and indicating that application summaries are included. It does not enumerate all returned fields, but given the tool's simplicity, the high-level description is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including the dual format (integer or alias). The description merely echoes this information ('by candidate ID or alias') without adding further semantic detail, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full candidate data including application summaries') and clearly identifies the lookup mechanism ('by candidate ID or alias'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_get_candidate_resume and hires_list_candidates, which serve different purposes.

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 description implies when to use this tool (to retrieve a single candidate's full data including application summaries) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context of scope but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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