hires_list_candidates

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions that results are paginated and that filters are optional, which conveys read-only, non-committal behavior. However, it does not mention access-control implications, default pagination sizes, ordering, or whether deleted candidates are excluded. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 primary action, and uses compact language. Every sentence adds information: the first states the resource and optional filtering, the second summarizes filter types and pagination. No filler or redundancy exists.

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 tool's complexity (12 optional parameters, no output schema), the description gives a solid high-level overview of available filters and pagination. It omits some parameter categories (e.g., q, include, company_id) and does not detail the response envelope, but the schema covers these gaps. The description is sufficient for an agent to initiate a candidate list query 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the 12 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only high-level category grouping (job, stage, email, name, LinkedIn, date ranges) without exposing new semantics beyond the schema. It does not clarify relationships like stage_id with job_id or company_id requirements, which are already documented in the schema.

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 a specific action ('List candidates') with a specific resource (candidates) and elaborates on supported filtering capabilities (by job, stage, email, name, LinkedIn, dates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., hires_list_jobs, hires_list_applications) by naming the candidate resource and filter variations.

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 conveys when to use the tool: whenever a list of candidates with optional filters is needed. It enumerates the filter dimensions, giving the agent a clear sense of supported use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as hiring-specific list operations, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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