get_candidate

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 it does disclose the read-only, single-item nature of the call. However, it says nothing about what a 'candidate version' is relative to a candidate, whether errors occur for unknown IDs, or any access constraints. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One short sentence with zero waste and the key qualifier front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the dense sibling set, but by pure conciseness standards it earns its place.

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, and the single parameter is fully documented. What remains missing is conceptual grounding (what a candidate version is, how it differs from lineage or scorecard reads), leaving the definition minimally complete for this tool family.

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% and there is a single required parameter ('candidate_id') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read one candidate version') and the parenthetical '(read-only)' clarifies the operation type. It implicitly distinguishes from list_candidates by saying 'one', but never mentions nearby siblings like get_candidate_lineage, get_candidate_scorecard, or get_incumbent, so differentiation requires opening the 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many candidate-related siblings (lineage, scorecard, list_candidates, get_incumbent). The agent must infer from the name alone which retrieval tool to pick.

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