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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: no notification is sent to the employee, only supplied fields are set, tenant plan limits can produce plan_limit_exceeded, and the created employee is returned as a compact record. These are non-obvious side effects and error conditions that materially help invocation.

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 four efficient sentences, starts with the operation type, and immediately covers the key distinction from the invite sibling. There is no filler.

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 high parameter count and fully documented schema, the description covers the most important behavioral context: side effects, plan-limit errors, the invite follow-up, and the return shape. 'Compact record' is slightly vague without an output schema, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all 23 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only a general note that unspecified fields remain unset, which is useful but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new employee (従業員) in SmartHR.' It also distinguishes this creation step from the sibling invite step, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly explains that this tool only registers the employee and that smarthr_invite_employee should be used afterwards to invite them. It does not explicitly contrast with smarthr_update_employee or state broader prerequisites, but the primary usage boundary is clear.

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