list_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as 'list' implying read-only, but does not explicitly state authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and efficiently directs to the sibling tool. No unnecessary words.

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 tool is straightforward with no output schema and all parameters described. The description covers the tool's scope and usage boundaries, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. Slightly misses a note on default ordering or return format, but the schema handles defaults.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions email, date ranges, and sorting, which maps to several parameters but does not add detailed semantics beyond the schema descriptions. It provides a high-level overview but no extra value for individual parameters.

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 lists candidates with simple filters like email, date ranges, and sorting. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_candidates' by specifying the exact use cases for each.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('browsing or filtering by exact email') and when not to, directing the agent to 'search_candidates' for full-text search or other complex filters. This is exemplary.

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