get_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: contact details are excluded from the response. However, it does not mention not-found behavior, permissions, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, though 'Get' strongly implies it.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional note about contact details is relevant and concise. 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to be extensive. It explains what is returned (candidate profile) and one exclusion (contact details), but without an output schema it leaves the full response shape and error behavior unspecified. This is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds an example ID format ('C-201') which gives the agent a concrete sense of the expected value. However, it does not explain the format rules, constraints, or what happens if the ID is invalid, leaving the parameter semantics only partially clarified.

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 and resource: 'Get one candidate profile by id'. It also gives an example ID format ('C-201') and clarifies scope by noting contact details are excluded. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_candidates, which would be used for finding candidates rather than fetching a single one by 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 implies the tool should be used when you already have a candidate_id and need a single profile. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to search_candidates as the alternative for finding candidates without an ID. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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