search_pipeline_candidates

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,' clarifying that no mutations occur. It also discloses the limitation that results depend on populated structured data. Missing finer behavioral details like rate limits or pagination, but the core safety profile is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The subsequent sentences provide examples, usage instructions, and alternative recommendations—all in a tight paragraph. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (8 parameters, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, when to switch to alternatives, and how to prepare inputs. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema 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%, with each parameter having a clear description including examples (e.g., title_keywords '['VP', 'Director']'). The tool description adds contextual examples but does not explain parameter interactions beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding substantial parameter-level insight.

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 the tool's function: 'Search pipelines by structured fields — title, company, education, tags' and explicitly labels it 'Read-only.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool scan_pipeline_resumes by positioning this as structured-field search.

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?

Provides explicit usage context with natural-language examples ('find VP-level candidates', 'who do we have from Google?'), instructs to pass job_ids obtained via list_jobs, and names an alternative (scan_pipeline_resumes) for when this tool underperforms. Also suggests combining with batch_read_resumes for verification.

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