hcm_search_calculation_cards

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is read-only, and the description mostly restates that with 'read-only'. It adds 'specialist' but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, finder semantics, or result 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 front-loaded sentence, but the parenthetical 'read-only specialist' mostly repeats the annotation rather than adding value. It is concise to the point of being under-specified.

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?

Given four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what a calculation card is, how 'q' or 'finder' should be used, or what the response contains.

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 input schema has four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset) with zero descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 names a specific resource and action: 'Search calculation cards'. The parenthetical 'read-only specialist' hints at its scope, though it does not define what a calculation card is or differentiate it from the many other hcm_search_* siblings.

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 such as hcm_search_workers or hcm_search_absences. The phrase 'read-only specialist' is too vague to serve as routing guidance.

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