hr.review_candidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve'), but it does not specify response format, whether the resume is embedded or a link, or any potential limitations (e.g., candidate may not have a resume). This is the minimum viable disclosure for a simple retrieve operation.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word adds value—'Retrieve a job candidate's profile including their resume for review'—and it avoids redundancy or filler. Excellent structure.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete. It tells what will be retrieved (profile + resume) and the purpose (evaluation). It does not describe the return structure, but that may not be necessary given the tool's simplicity. A minor gap is not mentioning any prerequisites (e.g., candidate exists), but overall it is sufficient.

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 covers the single parameter candidate_id with a description ('Candidate ID to review'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds that the profile includes a resume, which gives context for what the ID is used for, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a job candidate's profile including their resume'). It also adds the purpose ('for review' / 'evaluate candidates for open positions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hr.search_employees (employees, not candidates) and hr.generate_offer_letter (post-selection action).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to evaluate candidates for open positions.' It implies the tool is for candidate evaluation, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools are in different domains (payroll, IT, etc.), the usage context is unambiguous enough.

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