candidate_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the content is a 'neutral evidence capsule' with 'observations and bounded inferences,' which clarifies the nature of the output but does not mention side effects, performance implications, or how the tool behaves under different parameter settings. The description also omits any discussion of the configurable options (format, temporal, hard_stop) that affect behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key distinction (no verdict). It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is quite sparse. It does not describe the structure of the 'evidence capsule,' the meaning of 'bounded inferences,' or how the result is formatted. It also omits any mention of the temporal/hard_stop behaviors that are present in the schema but not referenced in the description. An agent would need to inspect the schema fully and still might not know when to prefer this over other evidence-related tools.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the schema handles most parameter explanation. The description adds minimal value: it only implies candidate_id is the identifier ('for one candidate id') and does not elaborate on format, temporal, or hard_stop. For the undocumented candidate_id, the description gives a hint but not full semantics. Given coverage is not high (>80%), the description should compensate more but does not.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Return the complete neutral evidence capsule for one candidate id.' It also differentiates from verdict-producing tools by explicitly noting 'no safe/unsafe verdict,' which helps distinguish it from siblings like guard_dominance. However, it does not name any sibling tool or explicitly contrast with other candidate-related tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the phrase 'no safe/unsafe verdict,' which implies it should be used when a verdict is not needed, but this is implicit and not actionable. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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