hcm_search_candidates

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not mention pagination behavior, how results are ordered, whether the finder parameter changes behavior, or anything about the returned data.

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 only three words, which is extremely concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Important usage details and parameter meanings are entirely absent, so the brevity does not earn credit as appropriate structure.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a large family of search tools as siblings, this description is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain how to construct a query, what limit/offset/finder do, or how this search differs from other search tools.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset). The 'finder' parameter in particular is opaque and would likely be central to how the search behaves, but the description gives no hint.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('recruiting candidates'), which is enough to identify the tool's domain and distinguishes it from searches over workers, absences, or other resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like hcm_get_candidate or hcm_search_requisitions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_search_workers, hcm_search_requisitions, or hcm_get_candidate. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would point an agent away from this tool.

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