search_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals how the tool handles Moka's 500 error by returning an empty result, supports cumulative pagination via limit, and requires a positioning condition. This provides useful context beyond a simple read operation, though authentication and rate limits are not mentioned.

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 well-structured with a clear heading, bullet points for parameters, and a note section. It front-loads the core purpose. The reference to the Moka API endpoint adds a bit of redundancy, but overall it is efficient and each part adds value.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is thorough: it explains all seven parameters, error handling, pagination, and a usage condition. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It could add more about typical scenarios or best practices, but it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., stage enum values, exact search for email/phone, time range, order, limit with pagination). It also notes the need for at least one condition (stage or applicationId). However, applicationId is not actually a parameter in the schema, which weakens the explanation.

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 it searches candidates by criteria and references the Moka API endpoint. It lists specific parameters, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_candidate_applications or get_candidate_detail, though the distinction is implicit by its search nature.

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 provides parameter notes and an important usage condition (need at least one of stage or applicationId), but applicationId is not present in the input schema, causing confusion. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it is given.

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