compare_candidates

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

Describes what the tool shows and does (scoring, picking winners), but does not mention data sources, side effects, or whether it fetches data. No annotations to contradict.

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?

Short, front-loaded, every sentence adds value. Bullet-like list and Args section are clear and efficient.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: what is compared, optional JD, output format implied by attributes. Output schema exists, so no need to detail return values.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: specifies usernames must be 2-5, job_description is optional. The schema only has titles, so description compensates for 0% coverage.

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?

Clearly states it compares 2-5 GitHub candidates side-by-side, listing displayed attributes (languages, activity, stars, strengths, gaps) and optional job description scoring. Distinguishes from siblings like score_against_jd and rank_candidates.

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?

Provides explicit use case (comparing multiple candidates with optional JD) and sibling context, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to specific alternatives.

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