im_search_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a list with profile summaries, which is minimal. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a search tool, more transparency on output format or limits would be expected.

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 sentences: the first clearly states the action and search criteria, the second states the return value. No unnecessary words, and key 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more details about the returned 'profile summaries' and any pagination or limits. It does not explain the format of the results, and it omits behavioral context like whether the search is fuzzy or exact. The tool has four parameters, but the description only covers the main search criteria, missing details on the 'limit' parameter's purpose.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description reiterates the schema's purpose for query, status, and location but does not add new meaning. The 'limit' parameter lacks a schema description and is also not mentioned in the tool description, so the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 candidate profiles by name, skills, location, or status and returns a list with summaries. The verb 'search' and resource 'candidate profiles' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'im_get_candidate' (single candidate) or 'im_search_jobs' (jobs).

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 indicates when to use the tool (to search for candidates), but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. Context from siblings suggests alternatives exist, but the description itself lacks this guidance.

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