Get Job Assigned Candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral details: it openly mentions 'compact assignment summaries' and that it returns candidate_slug values for Recruit CRM links. It does not contradict annotations, and the additional context is helpful, though it omits pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: main function, filtering/resolution guidance, and return value format. There is no redundancy or fluff, exemplifying appropriate conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filtering, ID resolution, and return value hints. It lacks explicit pagination or limit behavior details, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining status_id resolution, including using the job's hiring_pipeline_id and the fallback to 0 for global stages, which is valuable for correct invocation. This additional guidance justifies a 4.

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 'Fetches assigned candidates for one Recruit CRM job and returns compact assignment summaries,' using a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_candidates (all candidates) or get_candidate_details (single candidate), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool, such as narrowing to a hiring stage and resolving stage IDs with list_candidate_hiring_stages. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it vs alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance needed for a 5.

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