candidate_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the record is sealed, that the entire preserved path including losers is returned, and that 'the seal proves process integrity, never truth' — a valuable interpretation caveat. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, return format, and pagination behavior, so it is not complete.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the '[CHECK · internal]' marker and the fetch action. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical and em-dash clause make it slightly run-on.

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?

For a single-parameter fetch tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the resource, its sealed nature, and an interpretation caveat, but leaves the return shape and access requirements unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps given the total absence of structured behavioral metadata.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but the schema's pattern '^[0-9a-f]{64}$' already defines the format precisely. The description adds only that the key is a 'content hash', a marginal but nonzero clarification over the schema's bare 'hash' field.

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 verb ('Fetch') and a well-defined resource ('a sealed candidate record (a narrowing receipt or a commitment anchor)') resolved by content hash, which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent siblings candidate_commit, candidate_narrow, or seal_fetch, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite several plausible siblings (seal_fetch, verify, candidate_commit/candidate_narrow). It mentions verify_seal.py for offline re-checks but never says under what circumstance this tool should be chosen.

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