get_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses 'Free' (no cost) and the shape of the return payload (canonical_link, feed weight, also_in, duplicate collapsing). It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the time window boundary beyond 'this hour', so significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the nature of the tool ('Free provenance dump') before the field list. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what is returned.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is genuinely load-bearing and covers the return shape well. However, it omits how the 'key' scopes the result, result size limits, and when to prefer this over the other briefing-reading siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'key' parameter is documented in the schema as 'briefing key, e.g. ai'. The description adds no parameter detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema already does the work.

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 resource ('every candidate the editor saw this hour') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly differentiated by topic from the briefing/summary/render siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only steering is 'Free provenance dump', which implies a zero-cost inspection path, but there is no statement of when to call this versus get_briefing, get_summary, or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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