retrieve_ingestion_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: 'Read-only.' However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, authentication/integration requirements, or rate limits, so the disclosure is thinner than a mutation-free read tool with zero annotations could support.

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 purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded in the first two lines, with the sibling routing last. Three short statements, no filler, and each one carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature plus the scope and sibling alternative are all covered. The only gap is minor: no mention of pagination behavior for a paged list endpoint.

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 page and per_page are already documented in the schema and no required parameters exist. The description adds no meaning about parameter usage (e.g., how paging relates to the integration scope), so it sits at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (candidates) and narrows the scope precisely: candidates submitted through the Ingestion API by this integration. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_candidates, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative (list_candidates) and the condition that selects it ('full candidate database'), which is a genuine routing hint. It stops short of stating when this tool is the right choice beyond the implicit scoping to this integration's submissions.

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