search_pipeline_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it discloses the key safety trait ('Read-only') and an effectiveness precondition ('Best when structured data is populated'). It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or pagination, but the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe returns.

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 purpose before user phrasings and routing guidance, and each sentence contributes (purpose, examples, sourcing, fallback, combination). The user-quote examples are slightly verbose but genuinely aid matching.

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?

For an 8-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, fallback, and combination guidance. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 schema already documents all 8 parameters including job_ids, statuses, and keyword filters. The description adds only the field list and the job_ids sourcing hint, which the schema also states — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (pipelines/candidates) with the searchable scope (title, company, education, tags). It explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_pipeline_resumes (resume-text search) and batch_read_resumes, so an agent can route without opening any 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 (structured fields, when employment/education history is populated), a when-to-switch rule ('If few results, switch to scan_pipeline_resumes'), and a combination hint (batch_read_resumes). The user-phrasing examples further anchor the selection conditions.

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