ashby_list_candidates_for_job

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it lists return fields, explains pagination via cursor, and implies a read-only listing operation. It does not cover details like rate limits or error cases, but the annotation covers the main safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and pagination guidance. It is slightly redundant (return fields repeated in prose and in the response snippet) but every sentence carries useful information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 params, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential: what it returns, how to paginate, and its primary use case. It does not mention error handling or ordering, but these are not critical for a basic list endpoint.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds only minimal semantic value by mentioning 'Pass next_cursor to paginate,' which clarifies the cursor's role but does not significantly exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List all candidates/applications for a specific job') and clearly indicates the job-scoped scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with ashby_list_applications, so it misses the full sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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?

'Use this to see the pipeline for a job' gives a clear, explicit usage context. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use ashby_list_applications or ashby_get_pipeline_summary instead), stopping short of the strongest guidance.

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