get_golden_loop_certification_candidate

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by explicitly noting the absence of retained raw evidence, a meaningful limitation that an agent might otherwise assume is included in a certification candidate. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and object come first, followed by a meaningful behavioral qualifier. Every word contributes.

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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to fill semantic and workflow gaps. It does not define 'operator-review candidate' or explain the distinction from related golden-loop certification tools like get_current_golden_loop_certification or propose_golden_loop_certification. Adequate for a simple read-by-ID tool, but leaves workflow context to inference.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints via 'one exact' that candidate_id is the precise key and company_ref/project_ref scope the lookup, but it does not define formats, relationships, or how to obtain these values. The description fails to adequately compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('one exact operator-review candidate'), with an added qualifier ('without retained raw evidence') that distinguishes this from a variant that would include evidence. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a clear idea of what the tool does.

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 phrase 'without retained raw evidence' implies a selection criterion, but no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent can infer this is the tool to use when evidence is not needed, but it must guess which sibling to use when it does need evidence.

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