get_candidate_preferences

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

No annotations provided. The description only mentions return format (JSON) but does not disclose whether data is static, fetched live, or tied to the named candidate. No mention of permissions, freshness, or limitations.

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?

Single sentence but over-packed with a comma-separated list. Could be split into bullet points or clearer structure. Lacks paragraph breaks or emphasis.

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?

Without output schema and with zero parameters, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior. It mentions a specific candidate (Jake Gaylor) without clarifying if this is a demo or a persistent lookup. No details on data source, update frequency, or scope.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating returned fields (role types, level, location, etc.), which compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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?

Description states it returns structured data for 'Jake Gaylor', which is clear in content but confusing because the tool name implies a generic candidate fetch. Sibling tools suggest parameterization, but this tool has no parameters, making its scope ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_resume_text or assess_role_fit. The description does not explain context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from tool names.

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