Candidats correspondant à une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, but description adds that it returns a runbook text to be executed, which is a key behavioral trait not in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences in French, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but no wasted words.

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 workflow tool returning a runbook, description explains its high-level function and usage context. Lacks details on runbook format, but given no output schema, it's reasonably complete.

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?

Single parameter opportunity_id has full schema coverage. Description adds helpful semantics: accepts ID or title with auto-resolution via another tool, enhancing usability beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it finds matching active candidates from an opportunity, specifying inputs (tools, expertise, mobility). It also distinguishes itself as a tool equivalent to an MCP prompt, providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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?

Explicitly mentions it's useful when clients can't handle MCP prompts, indicating when to use this tool instead. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.

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