candidate_census

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'explicit analysis frontiers' and 'exhaustive counts' but does not disclose that the tool has a temporal evaluation behavior, a hard stop that degrades results, or that it returns a `temporal_evaluated` flag. Since these are significant behavioral aspects (potential partial results, termination), the description is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; the core function and a usage example are front-loaded. It is appropriately 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 the four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a clear purpose but omits the temporal/hard-stop behavior that the parameters control, which is important for an agent to understand the tool's performance and degradation semantics. The schema partially covers this, but the description could tie it together. Overall it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 75% with three parameters having descriptions; the only undocumented parameter is `constructor_id`. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not add value; baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('constructor metadata, exhaustive counts, and explicit analysis frontiers'), and gives a concrete use case ('distinguish an empty result from missing coverage'). It is clear and distinct from siblings like 'candidates' which likely list candidates. However, it does not explicitly name a specific alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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 a clear when-to-use scenario ('Use this to distinguish an empty result from missing coverage') but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools. It gives context but no exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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