search_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It fails to mention pagination behavior (though page and per_page parameters exist), sorting, or whether the search is exact or fuzzy. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently lists filters, making it concise and well-structured.

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 8 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination or default behaviors, which are critical for a search tool. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter explanations and usage guidance.

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 description must compensate. It explains the keyword, skills (comma-separated), location, experience, status, and job_id filters, and provides an example. However, it does not explain page, per_page, or the specific formats for keyword, location, or status, leaving some parameters 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches candidates and lists applicable filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_candidate_details (which retrieves a single candidate) and search_jobs. However, it could be more explicit about the scope, e.g., returning a list of matching candidates.

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 get_candidate_details for a specific candidate. It also lacks prerequisites or context for appropriate use, which is essential for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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