view_candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well at disclosing important behavioral traits: visibility rules (anonymous vs. complete modes), quota consumption ('每次查看消耗 quota'), and error behavior (404 for company blocklist without information leakage). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format details.

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 well-structured with clear sections (visibility rules, notes) and front-loads the core purpose. Most sentences earn their place by providing important constraints and behavioral information. It could be slightly more concise in the visibility rules section.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering important contextual information: visibility modes, source restrictions, quota consumption, and error behavior. It doesn't describe the response format or what fields are included in the detailed profile, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '查看特定候选人的详细档案' (view detailed profile of a specific candidate). It specifies the resource (candidate) and action (view detailed profile), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_candidates' which searches for candidates rather than viewing a specific one's details.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: '仅适用于市场候选人（source=mcp 或 gui_optin）' (only for market candidates with source=mcp or gui_optin) and explicitly states when NOT to use it: '数据库候选人（source=database）无详细档案视图' (database candidates have no detailed profile view). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'search_candidates' for finding candidates first.

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