review_candidates

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only behavior known. The description adds that results are sorted newest first, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or the effect of the k parameter.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the most critical information: status filter options and ordering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With only 2 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks explanation of the k parameter and any pagination or result limits. It sufficiently covers status filtering and ordering but leaves key usage details implicit.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides the allowed values for the status parameter (pending, accepted, rejected, all) and implies its usage. However, it does not explain the k parameter, leaving its meaning (likely a limit) undefined.

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 specifies that the tool lists candidates filtered by status (pending, accepted, rejected, all) and sorted newest first. This clearly indicates a read operation to view candidates for review, which is distinct from sibling tools like accept_candidate or reject_candidate, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as candidate_review_status or accept_candidate. It does not state prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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