search_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic search intent and does not mention what the response contains, pagination behavior, or any side effects. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and the resource. It is concise and directly to the point, with every word earning 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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify what the search returns (e.g., a list of candidate objects). It also doesn't explain how the limit parameter affects results. These omissions leave the agent uncertain about the tool's outcome.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters: query (name or email) and limit (with a default). The description's phrase 'by name or email' redundantly restates the schema's query description, adding no new meaning. Baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 specifies the action (search), resource (candidates in Ashby), and scope (by name or email). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_candidate, which likely retrieves a single candidate.

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 when to use this tool (searching candidates) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_candidate and list_candidate_applications hint at different use cases, but no direct guidance is given.

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