List candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond filtering — no note on paging behavior, result ordering, or whether stage values must pre-exist on the vacancy, which is the one real trap here.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: purpose first, then the three filter axes, with the multi-id hint parenthesized exactly where it matters.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is listed and how to narrow it. It falls slightly short on paging/return expectations and leaves the include parameter unexplained.

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?

Coverage is a middling 67%. The description usefully adds that vacancy ids may be comma-separated (the schema gives vacancy_id no description at all) and clarifies stage/hire-date filters. However, page, perPage, and especially the undescribed 'include' enum are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List job applications (candidates)') and names the filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself from get_job_application by being plural/list-shaped, though it never explicitly contrasts with list_vacancies or pipeline_summary.

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 filter clauses imply when to reach for this tool (browsing candidates by vacancy, stage, or hire date), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to siblings like get_job_application for a single record or pipeline_summary for aggregates.

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