hcm_lov_finder

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful context about the allowlisted LOV roots, which helps the agent understand scope, but it does not disclose behavior for disallowed roots or describe the return shape.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and a useful example list. It is concise and readable, though the phrase 'runs finder=' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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?

The description covers the main inputs and the allowlist constraint, which is helpful. But with no output schema, no explanation of q/limit, and no pointer to hcm_describe_finder for discovering valid finders, an agent is left with some gaps when invoking this 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?

The schema documents resource and finder with descriptions, and the description reinforces their roles. However, q and limit have no schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the description, leaving half the parameters underdocumented.

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 action — runs finder= on an allowlisted LOV root — and lists concrete example roots like organizations, locations, and jobs. It is clearly distinguishable from general search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling hcm_lov_find.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools or hcm_lov_find. The allowlist note implies constraints, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.

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