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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists notes for one candidate, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the candidate is not found. The schema hints at pagination (cursor, page) but the description omits this.

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 extremely concise, comprising two short sentences that convey the essential purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain pagination, filtering, or the response format. For a list tool, this leaves significant gaps that could hinder agent usage.

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 description coverage is low (33%), but the description adds specific context for the path_params object by instructing to provide candidate_id. This interprets one parameter, but other parameters like page, limit, and cursor receive no additional meaning beyond their names.

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 lists notes and specifies 'Notes for one candidate', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_candidates. It also instructs to provide path_params.candidate_id, making the resource explicit.

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 tells the user to provide path_params.candidate_id, giving a basic usage hint. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it) or any prerequisites.

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