search_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: filters combined with AND, default to recent candidates with no filters, date format, and return of candidate summaries. It adequately discloses operational traits.

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 four concise sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the action and avoids redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains filtering, date formatting, and return type. It could mention pagination details, but overall it is fairly complete for a search tool.

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 description groups parameters into categories (name, email, location, date range) and specifies date format, but does not explain each of the 10 parameters individually. It adds meaning beyond schema (which has 0% coverage) but lacks full detail.

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 'Search for candidates' which identifies the specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_companies by specifying the target as candidates.

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: 'Provide at least one filter for targeted results' and 'With no filters, returns a paginated list of recent candidates.' It explains filtering logic (AND) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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