get_candidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get full profile details', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool has side effects. The description adds no value beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous words, and it efficiently conveys the tool's functionality. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided) and the description covering the basic purpose, it is mostly complete. However, the lack of usage guidelines and any behavioral notes means it falls short of fully informing an agent, especially for optimal tool selection.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'candidate_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds context that the parameter can be a 'slug or ID', which clarifies accepted formats but does not specify the exact format or any validation rules. This partially compensates for the lacking schema description.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full profile details for a specific candidate', and the identification method 'by slug or ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_candidates (which returns lists) and update_candidate (which modifies).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not indicate that this tool should be used when a candidate ID or slug is known, while search_candidates is for finding candidates by query. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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