Get Pitched Records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by disclosing that returned records omit email, phone, resume, and profile image fields, which is behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then output limitation. No filler or redundant phrasing; each 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and a key output detail. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for both params. The description goes further by explaining the directional relationship in plain language ('Set entity_type to candidate to return contacts for a candidate slug, or contact to return candidates for a contact slug'), adding meaning beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Fetches contacts where a candidate is pitched or candidates pitched to a contact,' which clearly names the resource and bidirectional nature. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pitch_history by specifying that it returns compact records and requires an entity_type and entity_slug.

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 explicitly instructs how to set entity_type to candidate or contact and what each returns, providing clear context for using the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the compact record notice hints that full-field tools might be preferred when those fields are needed.

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