Employee attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the fallback behavior when multiple employees match ('returns up to 20 candidates instead'). This is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand an important edge case.

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 filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical fallback behavior is stated concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core output (summary and incidents) and the ambiguous-name fallback. It does not describe the exact return format or pagination, but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail might be expected. However, given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it reiterates the employee parameter ('Employee ID or part of a name') but does not explain grace_minutes or the date filters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 ('Attendance summary and incident list') and a clear resource ('for one employee'), and lists the incident types (late, no-show, missed clock-out). It distinguishes itself from siblings by the 'one employee' scope, which is not ambiguous.

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 implies usage for a single employee's attendance but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It does not reference sibling tools like find_late_arrivals or missing_clock_events, leaving the agent to infer the scope from 'one employee'.

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