Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('full profile' and 'candidate record directly from the Greenhouse API'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second provides usage guidelines, third clarifies return source. Each sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature (single parameter, exact-match search) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return format. However, without annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'email' parameter's purpose ('exact email address') and constraint ('exact match'). With only one parameter, this provides adequate semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('Search for a candidate by exact email address') and resource ('candidate'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_candidates_by_name' and 'get_candidate' by specifying the exact-match email lookup method.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you have a candidate's email and need their full profile.' This provides clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives like name-based search or general candidate listing.

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