candidate_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool is neutral, includes observations and bounded inferences, and crucially does not make a safe/unsafe verdict. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation or any other behavioral traits beyond the result content.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds essential qualifiers about content boundaries. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and return-content nature but leaves gaps: it does not describe how the evidence capsule is structured, what 'bounded inferences' means in practice, or how a caller should interpret the output. For a simple two-parameter lookup this is near-adequate, but it could be stronger.

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 50%, with the format parameter already described and the candidate_id parameter lacking a description. The description partially compensates by making clear that candidate_id selects 'one candidate id', but it adds no information about the format parameter beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('neutral evidence capsule') for a single candidate ID, and explicitly clarifies what the result does and does not contain (observations/bounded inferences, no verdict). This distinguishes it from list-like siblings such as candidates or candidate_census, though it does not name them directly.

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 'for one candidate id' and 'complete neutral evidence capsule' imply use when a specific candidate's detailed evidence is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like candidates, candidate_census, or taint, and no mention of what conditions make other tools preferable.

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