List Candidate Questions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: pagination is MCP-side because the upstream endpoint returns all rows, and returns compact id/question rows. This explains behavioral traits not covered by 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every clause adds meaningful information. No wasted words.

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 list operation with two well-documented parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what, why, and the pagination behavior without over-explaining.

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 both 'page' and 'limit' fully described. The description reinforces the pagination mechanism but does not add significant new parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Lists Recruit CRM candidate questions' with the specific purpose of 'resolving candidate question IDs.' It also distinguishes itself by noting MCP-side pagination and the compact return format, which separates it from any potential sibling list tools.

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 implies usage when resolving candidate question IDs, and it clarifies why pagination is handled MCP-side. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, there are no direct sibling tools for candidate questions, so the context is sufficient.

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