get_candidate_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the API method (GET) implying read-only, notes return content structure, and warns that attachment/avatar URLs expire in 1 hour. This provides useful behavioral context, though explicit safety hints are missing.

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?

Description is concise with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by API reference, parameter description, return summary, and a key behavioral note. No redundant information.

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 complexity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, return contents, and URL expiration. Missing explicit permission or error information, but overall sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains application_id as '候选人申请 ID' (candidate application ID) and importantly notes support for comma-separated multiple IDs with an example, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states '获取单个候选人的完整信息' (get complete info of a single candidate), which is clear. However, it later allows comma-separated multiple IDs, creating slight ambiguity about single vs. multiple. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_candidates or get_candidate_applications.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings or provide when-not-to-use conditions. The only context is the API endpoint, which is technical but not decision-guiding.

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