Менеджеры и штат

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the list is not a complete directory but a derived set from posted orders, so it may not contain all staff, only those that have been used. This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and fields, and the important caveat about derivation is placed second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: what the list contains, how it's derived, and its limitation. The only minor gap is the undocumented filial_code parameter, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 50%: the 'query' parameter is described as search by name or code, but 'filial_code' has no description. The description mentions work zones and staff codes but doesn't explicitly explain the filial_code parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers half the parameters and the description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 clearly identifies the resource (sales managers/staff accepted in orders), the specific fields (staff code, name, work zones), and the key limitation (no dedicated staff directory in SmartUp API). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it is a derived list, not a direct reference lookup.

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 explains that the list is assembled from completed orders, implying it should be used when you need staff codes that are known to work in orders. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings and the explanation of derivation provide clear usage context.

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