list_talent_pool_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic query operation. It lacks information on pagination, permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which is needed since annotations are absent.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement, an API endpoint reference, and a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter details. However, it lacks context on pagination or result structure, though the output schema exists to supplement. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility. It adds significant value by providing examples and clarifying that all parameters are required, which the schema (with only titles) does not convey. Each parameter is explained with format and usage.

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 that the tool queries candidates under a specified talent pool with archive time range filtering. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like list_talent_pools (lists pools, not candidates) and search_candidates (general search).

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 by listing required parameters and giving examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_candidates or list_talent_pools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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