search_candidates_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly declares 'Read-only,' which is a safety-relevant behavior not available elsewhere. It also discloses that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, with concrete examples, and notes that users refer by name rather than ID—all beyond the structured schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then workflow, then an illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it concise yet highly informative.

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 simplicity of the tool, a fully documented schema (100% coverage), and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior completely. Pagination is not discussed, but the schema documents per_page and max_pages, so no critical gap exists.

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 baseline is 3. The description's example ('Sarah') reinforces the schema's 'case-insensitive substring' but adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states. Per_page and max_pages are not mentioned in the description, but their schema descriptions are clear.

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 'Find candidates by name,' which is a specific verb plus resource. It further positions itself as 'the starting point for most workflows,' distinguishing it from other search tools by name-based scope. The matching behavior (case-insensitive substring) is also clarified, leaving 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 explicitly states 'Use this first whenever a user mentions a candidate, then get_candidate on the match to see their full profile and application IDs.' This provides a clear workflow and when-to-use instruction relative to get_candidate. It also implies the alternative (email search) by noting users refer to candidates by name, not ID.

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