hires_list_candidate_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. There is no mention of what 'history' includes or any error conditions.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It is concise and effectively structured.

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?

This is a simple list operation with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary purpose but omits details about return values, pagination behavior, and any preconditions. It is adequate but lacks the richness needed for a fully autonomous agent.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of is_scheduled=1 is redundant with the schema. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool's function: 'List email and messaging history for a candidate.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'for a candidate' distinguishes it from broader message-listing tools like hires_list_messages.

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 provides a specific usage tip for the is_scheduled parameter, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or state any exclusions. The intended use case is implied by the tool's name and the 'for a candidate' phrasing, but no explicit guidance is given.

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