list_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose '(read-only)' and the newest-first ordering, which are genuinely useful traits. It does not address pagination semantics, permissions, or failure behavior, so coverage is only partial for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

The verb and read-only nature are front-loaded, and the two sentences stay short. The parenthetical 'The population listing the Loop-1 roster pulls' is slightly opaque jargon that costs a little clarity relative to its length.

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 shape need not be described, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the ordering guarantee and the key domain fact that status is derived rather than stored, which is what an agent most needs here.

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% — limit and offset are already documented as pagination in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., maximum limit or default ordering interaction), 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 ('Enumerate') and resource ('candidate population') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). The clarification that candidates are the researchers and that champion/challenger status lives in promotion_decisions helps distinguish this from get_incumbent, though the relationship to get_candidate/get_candidate_lineage is not spelled out.

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 implies this is the whole-population listing and points to get_incumbent for derived status, which gives an agent a rough sense of when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance versus single-entity tools like get_candidate, so usage must be inferred.

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