candidates_needing_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', discloses that results are sorted by urgency, and clarifies that it returns both stale applications and interviews missing scorecards. This is solid behavioral disclosure, though it does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose and read-only nature, then providing user-intent examples and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 read-only query tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and clear sibling alternatives, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and return contents. It could mention pagination or sorting direction more explicitly, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already explain job_id ('Filter to one job — list_jobs → match by name') and stale_days ('Days without activity to flag as stale'). The tool description adds a little context ('omit for all active applications') but mostly reinforces what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('find') and resource ('candidates that need attention'), and clearly defines the scope as stale applications and missing scorecards. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'stale_applications' by adding the scorecard component and the attention/urgency framing.

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?

It provides clear usage context with example user queries ('what needs my attention?', 'who's been sitting too long?') and explains when to pass job_id versus omit it. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward read-only query tool.

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