rt_get_candidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavior. It warns about per-offer salary answers and the need to read the offer id, which is a subtle but critical nuance. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but a 'get' operation implies that. The extra context about the flat response is valuable.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first lists the returned content, the second flags a caveat. No filler, front-loaded purpose. Excellent structure.

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?

The description covers what is returned and highlights a tricky aspect of the data shape (per-offer answers). It doesn't explain the response envelope, but with no output schema present, the description could mention the return format. Still, it's fairly complete for a single-record GET.

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 one required parameter (candidateId) with type number, and the description does not elaborate on it. While the meaning is obvious from context, the description adds no parameter detail, and schema coverage is 0%. A brief mention of what to pass would raise this.

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 explicitly states 'Full record for one candidate' and enumerates the contents (contact details, tags, every placement, application answers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rt_get_notes or rt_search_candidates.

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 implies this is the tool to use when a complete single-candidate snapshot is needed)Skip. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the

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