Discover Candidates Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Search,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether results are limited, how the limit parameter behaves, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no structured annotation clues.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core action and object. However, it is so short that it omits necessary context, so while efficient, it is not fully effective.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a broad scope across multiple domains, the description is far from complete. It does not clarify what 'candidates' means, which values the entity parameter accepts beyond the named examples, how query matching works, or how limit affects results. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these input-side gaps.

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 must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds some value by listing likely values for the entity parameter (products, recipes, chores, locations, tasks, metadata domains), but it does not explain the query parameter semantics or the limit parameter. The vague 'supported metadata domains' further reduces its usefulness.

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 a clear verb ('Search') and names concrete resources: products, recipes, chores, locations, tasks, or supported metadata domains. This distinguishes it from single-entity list tools like recipes_list_tool or chores_list_tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar cross-entity search tools or explain the 'candidates' concept.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus an alternative. The description only implies it is a generic cross-domain search, but never says 'use this instead of X when...' or mentions any exclusions. An agent is left to infer the exact selection criteria from the tool name and sibling list.

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