get_recruiting_candidate

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing identification methods and return contents (profile fields, skills, counts, primary email), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first specifies the action and identification, second lists return details. Concise and front-loaded with no unnecessary words.

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 the essential aspects: what it does, how to call it, what it returns. For a simple get tool with one parameter and an output schema, it is fairly complete, though it could mention that input is case-sensitive 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?

The schema describes 'candidate' as a string that will be trimmed, but the description clarifies it can be a person _id, email, or exact display name, which is critical semantic information not present in the 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 action 'Get one Recruiting candidate' and specifies the identification methods (person _id, email, or exact display name). It distinguishes from siblings like list_recruiting_candidates and get_recruiting_applicant.

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 usage for fetching a single candidate by specific identifiers but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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