peopleforce_get_employee

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, non-destructive read with complete data. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (position, department, manager, custom fields), going beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no waste. Every word is necessary and clear.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains purpose, identifier, and return scope without missing critical information.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter description ('Employee id (numeric)'). The description does not add further meaning beyond 'by PeopleForce id', so baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool gets a single employee by PeopleForce id and lists the returned fields (full profile, position, department, manager, custom fields). It distinguishes from sibling tools like peopleforce_list_employees (multiple) and peopleforce_find_employee_by_email (different 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 implies usage when you have a specific employee id and need full details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for listing or email lookup). No exclusions or context provided.

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