harvest_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It mentions concurrency, exclusion, dedup, and fusion but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), auth requirements, rate limits, or the nature of 'concurrent' execution.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overloaded with jargon (A1/A2/T/B/C/D/E) without explanation. Front-loading is adequate but clarity suffers.

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 complexity (20 parameters, multiple retrieval stages) and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. Output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of parameter and behavioral context.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 20 parameters. The meaning of parameters like 'limit', 'queries', 'venue_ids', etc., is left entirely to inference.

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 mentions concurrent execution of multiple retrieval stages (A1/A2/T/B/C/D/E), exclusion, dedup, and RRF fusion, giving a general sense of candidate harvesting. However, it does not explain what the acronyms mean or specify output, and it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like search_works.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_works). No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is provided.

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