Draft Candidate Pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states the tool never invents experience, never includes pay/bill rates, and crucially that it 'Returns a DRAFT only; this tool sends nothing.' It does not cover permissions or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Six tight clauses, no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant guardrail (input form, content constraints, output nature).

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what is returned ('a DRAFT only; sends nothing'). It covers the key behavioral guardrails for a 6-param generation tool but omits how id/url/category influence the draft and any auth or rate-limit 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the one parameter the description highlights (roleDescription as generic with no client name) is already documented in the schema itself, so it adds little. The other parameters (id, url, category) receive no explanation in either the schema or the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Draft) and resource (candidate endorsement/pitch) and immediately qualifies the output as 'short, value-first' and 'for the sender to review.' This clearly separates it from all siblings, which are retrieval/match tools (search_top_candidates, match_role, get_candidate_link), so there is no plausible tool confusion.

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?

It gives usage conditions ('Pass a generic roleDescription with no client name') and content guardrails, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor names any sibling, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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