search_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one key behavioral trait: 'Never returns contact details,' which is significant and prevents misuse. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as how results are ordered, what happens with zero matches, pagination, or any error conditions. The disclosure is minimal but at least includes a critical limitation.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and a critical constraint. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a simple, focused function.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'limit' or 'min_years,' nor does it describe the response format beyond the absence of contact details. An agent would lack sufficient information to call the tool correctly (e.g., how to set limits, what output to expect) and would need to infer or seek additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only implicitly references the 'skills' parameter ('given skills'), but does not explain 'limit' or 'min_years.' The description adds no value for these parameters, leaving an agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone. Since it does clarify the primary input but ignores others, it partially compensates but falls short.

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 clear purpose: 'Rank candidates by overlap with the given skills.' It uses a specific verb ('rank') and resource ('candidates'), and adds a distinguishing constraint ('Never returns contact details'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_jobs (jobs vs candidates) and get_candidate (retrieval vs ranking).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer search_candidates over search_jobs, get_candidate, or score_match. The only hint is the purpose itself, which implies usage for skill-based candidate ranking, but there is no 'use this when...' or 'for other searches, use...' statement.

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