search_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the employer-role authorization requirement, which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about safe/read-only nature, ranking behavior, result limits, or pagination, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

A single short sentence with the precondition parenthesized and front-loaded — no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits sibling differentiation, parameter semantics at 0% schema coverage, and most behavioral traits. For a search tool with a competing match_candidates sibling, this is not enough for confident invocation.

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 schema documents neither parameter. The description's phrase 'natural-language search' only hints that query is free text and never explains max_results (default 10) or how results are capped, leaving the parameter contract largely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('自然语言搜索候选人' = natural-language candidate search), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool match_candidates, which an agent could easily confuse with a natural-language 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?

Adds one real usage constraint — an employer role is required — which is actionable context. But it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over match_candidates or match_job_requirement, so tool selection between these siblings is left to inference.

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