get_candidate_details

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

Description lists what the tool returns (contact info, experience, etc.), which is transparent about output. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks disclosure of side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or data sensitivity. The description partially compensates for missing annotations by stating the return fields.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No extraneous words; every part provides 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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description adequately covers expected return. However, it does not mention error cases, rate limits, or any special behaviors. Given no annotations, the description could be more complete but meets basic needs.

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% and the description does not explain the candidate_id parameter beyond its name. The description implies the parameter is the candidate's ID, but offers no additional semantics like format, source, or relation to other tools.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a candidate's full profile and enumerates specific fields like contact info, experience, skills, current company, status, and interview history. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'candidate's full profile', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_candidates which return lists.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_candidates). It does not mention prerequisites such as requiring a candidate_id or context like needing full detail vs summary.

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