rt_offer_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope (single offer) and the data returned (stage, disqualification, ratings), but does not mention pagination behavior, default limit, or any side effects. Since it's a read operation, the lack of mutation warnings is acceptable, but more detail on output structure would improve transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that packs essential information: scope, data returned, and differentiation from broader queries. No fluff, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the core functionality and scope. However, it could mention that the output includes a list of candidates and possibly pagination, but the schema covers the limit parameter, so the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that the tool is scoped to one offer, which clarifies the offerId parameter's role. The limit parameter is self-explanatory, so the description adds minimal extra value, but the scoping note enhances understanding.

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 clearly states the tool returns candidates for a single offer, including stage, disqualification state, and ratings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a company-wide database query, which differentiates it from sibling tools like rt_search_candidates or rt_get_candidate.

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 usage for retrieving candidates scoped to a specific offer, and the schema notes offerId comes from rt_list_offers, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the scoping hint helps.

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