candidate_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating 'Not paginated,' which is a key behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds a critical behavioral note ('Not paginated'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (search with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait (no pagination), but lacks details on response structure, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('email' and 'name') adequately. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning search 'by email and/or name,' but doesn't elaborate on search logic (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('candidates'), specifying search criteria ('by email and/or name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'candidate_list' by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'candidate_info' or 'job_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?

The description implies usage for searching candidates by email or name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'candidate_list' (which might list all candidates) or 'candidate_info' (which might retrieve details for a specific candidate). The lack of pagination is noted, which hints at usage for small result sets.

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