scan_all_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' plus a real performance caveat: title/company/experience filters fetch employment history for every scanned page, and updated_after limits scope on large databases. It does not describe pagination or result caps beyond what the schema already states, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and read-only status, then alternative, then performance guidance, then follow-up. Four short sentences, none wasted.

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; the description instead covers the things the schema can't: sibling differentiation, cost behavior, and the recommended next call. Complete for a broad scan tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning beyond the schema: which parameters are expensive (title/company/experience) and why updated_after matters on large databases. That is genuine value over the field 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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (candidates), and scope (database-wide, by structured fields), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_pipeline_candidates. An agent can distinguish it from other candidate-search tools without opening schemas.

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 (search_pipeline_candidates), gives the selecting condition ('candidates might be in unexpected pipelines'), and prescribes a follow-up step (batch_read_resumes to validate matches). Explicit when-to-use and what-to-do-next.

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