ashby_search_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds useful behavioral context: the AND logic between name and email, the max 100 results cap, and the response shape (candidates[] with id, name, email, phone). It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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: the first sentence states the action, the second gives the usage context, and the third covers logic and limits. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key decision factors: when to use it, the AND logic, the result cap, and the response fields. It could mention pagination or what happens when no results are found, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description adds the AND logic between query and email, which is a meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add much beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('candidates') and clearly identifies the search criteria (name or email). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ashby_get_candidate (which likely fetches by ID) by explicitly noting this is for when you know name/email but not ID.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when you know a candidate's name or email but not their ID.' This directly differentiates it from ashby_get_candidate and other candidate-related tools. It also clarifies the AND logic when both name and email are provided, and the max result limit.

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