search_candidates_by_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose read-only status, exact-email matching, and that any email on the profile can match. It stops short of describing error cases, multiple-match handling, or permission requirements, so it is strong but not complete.

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-loads the core action and read-only status, then adds usage and alternatives in three short, well-structured sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 format need not be explained; the description covers when to use the tool, the relevant alternative, and the logical next step. For a single required parameter lookup tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by saying it 'matches any email on the candidate's profile,' which clarifies that the exact email can match against multiple email fields on the profile. It goes slightly beyond the schema's terse 'Exact email address to search for.'

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 ('look up') and resource ('candidate by exact email address'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools such as search_candidates_by_name and the broader get_candidate/list_candidates. An agent can identify the tool's scope without reading the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when the user provides an email instead of a name'), a clear alternative ('For name-based lookup, use search_candidates_by_name'), and a follow-up action for applications. Nothing about selecting this tool is left to inference.

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