im_get_candidate_db

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It indicates direct DB access and hints at performance impact ('when API limits are insufficient'), but does not specify authorization requirements, potential delays, or whether the query modifies data. The description is partially transparent but lacks details on costs or risks.

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 two effective sentences. It immediately states the primary action and then provides usage guidance, with no redundant or unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (direct DB query with 3 optional params, no output schema), the description provides a use case but omits details on return format, pagination behavior, or maximum result size. It is functional but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all aspects of tool behavior.

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?

The input schema has 33% description coverage (only 'skill' is described). The description does not explain the meaning of 'status' enum values, the effect of 'limit', or how 'skill' filtering works. It fails to add value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from context.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'IntelliMatch database directly for candidate records.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying use cases like bulk queries and custom filters, implying this tool is for direct DB access when API limits are insufficient.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: for bulk queries, custom filters, or when API limits are insufficient. It implies that for simpler single-record queries, other tools (like im_get_candidate) should be used, though it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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