rt_search_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral detail. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, return format, pagination, or ordering, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's effects.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or details, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 lacks essential context such as the return structure, whether results are paginated, or any error/edge case behaviors. Without an output schema, the agent cannot anticipate what the tool returns, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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 query parameter's semantics are partially clarified by the description ('by name or keyword'), but the limit parameter is not described. The schema only provides type and default, so its meaning (e.g., maximum number of results) is not explicitly stated.

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's purpose: to find candidates by name or keyword. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_candidate by indicating a search across the company rather than a specific lookup.

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 when searching by name or keyword, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_candidate or list_candidates. There is no direct guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.

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