filter_candidates

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 behavioral traits. It reveals that this is query-time filtering (not alert-time), mandates user confirmation before execution, and says to offer the filter configuration JSON after results. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond what a schema would indicate, though it could also mention pagination or return format (but output schema exists).

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs and bolded 'IMPORTANT' sections, making it scannable. The parameter-validation examples add length but are valuable for guiding the required user interaction. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence contributes behavioral or usage guidance.

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 (13 parameters, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role, the mandatory user-confirmation workflow, and post-result actions. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 the input schema already provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The tool description adds some examples within the parameter-validation section (e.g., 'braai score > 0.9', 'sgScore < 0.3'), but these do not expand on the schema's parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, though the examples reinforce usage.

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 opens with 'Search for candidates matching specific criteria on the scanning page,' which clearly states the verb (search), resource (candidates), and scope (scanning page). It further distinguishes itself by clarifying 'query-time filtering of existing candidates (not alert-time filtering),' which separates it from similar tools. This is a specific and clear purpose.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: 'Use this to search the scanning page for candidates matching specific properties.' It also provides procedural guidance, such as 'Before executing this tool, ALWAYS confirm with the user that the filter parameters are reasonable.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when NOT to use it, so it misses the full 'when/alternatives' guidance for a 5.

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