List Applicants

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

The description discloses that search matches first name, last name, or email including email domain, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format, ordering, or pagination (the latter is only in the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. It is concise while still conveying the key search behavior.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description covers the core functionality and search behavior. However, it does not mention the optional max_records parameter or any potential defaults/limits, which are only in the schema. Given no output schema, a bit more context about the return value could be useful, but the tool name implies a list.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what is already in the schema. The schema descriptions for 'search' and 'max_records' are comprehensive, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Get recruitment applicants (candidates)' which clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tool 'list_applications' (applications) and 'get_applicant' (single applicant). The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 clear context that this tool searches applicants by first name, last name, or email, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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