Get Candidate Link

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the call is purely constructive (never fetches the page) and explains the consequence of the opposite behavior (opening a profile triggers an AI resume read). That is exactly the kind of side-effect/cost context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the critical behavioral constraint and the usage directive. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter, side-effect-free URL builder with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, behavior, and safe usage. The return value (a URL string) is clearly implied by 'Build ... URL', so nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 50% (only `from` is documented). The description restates both parameters and clarifies `from` as an optional category slug and that the URL is composed from `id`, adding mild meaning beyond the bare types, though `id`'s format is still only implied.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('candidate's public profile URL') and names both inputs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby sibling get_top_candidate_profile_url, so an agent must infer the distinction from the argument shape alone.

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?

Gives clear operational context ('Share the link; do not crawl it') and a reason to avoid dereferencing. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when a caller would prefer get_top_candidate_profile_url over this one, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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