ashby_get_candidate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it fetches the candidate profile and then resolves each application for full details, implying a multi-step read operation. It also documents the response shape, which is helpful beyond the annotation since there is no output schema.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise content details and a clear response outline. No redundant filler or vague language is present.

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 a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the input, describes the candidate profile contents, and specifies both the candidate and application response fields. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 coverage is 100%, with candidate_id already described as 'The candidate ID (UUID) to fetch.' The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific action ('Get a comprehensive candidate profile') and enumerates the included data: candidate details, contact info, social links, tags, source, and applications with stages. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_candidate_notes or get_application_details because it frames itself as the full-profile retrieval tool.

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 conveys a clear use case: 'everything needed to evaluate a candidate', suggesting this is the go-to tool for a broad candidate overview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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