get_candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a critical safety signal. It also details what is returned (name, contact info, all applications, tags, custom fields, attachments), adding value beyond the schema. It does not mention error/not-found behavior, but for a read-only lookup with a single ID parameter, the coverage is strong.

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 three concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by return contents and usage alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details. It is highly scannable and appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is a central lookup with an output schema (context signal indicates true), so the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers purpose, read-only nature, key return contents, and relationship to sibling tools. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 already has 100% coverage with a description for candidate_id ('Greenhouse candidate ID'). The description only says 'by ID,' which adds little beyond the schema. No additional semantics about format, requiredness, or constraints are provided, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a candidate's full profile by ID.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is the 'central lookup' and explicitly names alternatives like search_candidates_by_name and screen_candidate. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit usage guidance: it says this is the central lookup after resolving a name via search_candidates_by_name, and directs users to screen_candidate when they need a screening package with resume and location. This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, differentiating it from similar candidate-focused tools.

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