erlc_v1_staff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the name — that the endpoint is deprecated — which is valuable operational context. It says nothing about auth requirements, response shape, or whether the data is still live, leaving real gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the operational warning follows the purpose statement in a sensible order. Nothing is wasted, though the content is thin rather than deliberately tight.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema endpoint the required surface is small, and the deprecation warning covers the most important decision an agent faces. Still, it omits any indication of what the returned staff data looks like or whether the endpoint still responds, which a fully complete definition would address.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description is neither misleading nor required to compensate for a schema gap.

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?

States the verb and resource ("Get API v1 staff data") but the scope is vague — it doesn't say what 'staff data' contains or how it differs from the sibling erlc_staff beyond the v1/deprecated signal. The deprecation note does help separate it from the non-v1 sibling, but that is a status flag rather than a purpose statement.

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 deprecation notice is a usable when-not signal — an agent can infer it should prefer erlc_staff. However, the alternative is never named and no condition or migration path is given, so routing is left to inference.

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