Search Top Candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does meaningful work: it discloses a hard result cap (up to 25), states that only public fields are exposed (a data-privacy constraint), and enumerates the returned fields. It stops short of permissions/rate-limit/empty-result behavior, but the safety-relevant disclosure is unusually good for an annotation-free tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then filtering guidance, then the anti-hallucination rule. No redundant restatement of the name or schema, and each sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (name + last initial, role title, category, profile URL) and the 25-item ceiling. It is close to complete; only ranking/relevance ordering and empty-result handling are left unspecified.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: example query terms, and the constraint that `category` must be a slug sourced from the sibling list_categories rather than an arbitrary string. That cross-tool dependency is not captured in the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (Activate Talent's pre-vetted Top Candidates) with the queryable dimensions (role, skill, tool). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_top_candidate_profile_url and list_categories, which the description even references for filtering.

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?

Explains how to narrow results by pointing at the `category` slug from list_categories, and adds a behavioral rule ('Report only returned candidates; never invent any'). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over siblings such as match_role or get_candidate_link, so routing between search-like tools remains implicit.

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