get_candidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states it returns a JSON object with candidate details, implying a read operation. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or idempotency specifics, though the basic read behavior is clear.

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 concise and well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence is informative, with no redundant content.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and two well-described parameters, the description is mostly complete for a basic get operation. However, it could mention the typical workflow (e.g., use 'list_candidates' to obtain IDs) and provide some error handling notes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'candidate_id' as 'The Candidate ID' and 'fields' as 'Comma-separated fields to return (default: all common fields)', adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 'Get details for a specific candidate by ID,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_candidates' and 'get_job' by targeting a single candidate via ID.

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 usage when you have a candidate ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_candidates' to find IDs. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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