hcm_search_learning_enrollments

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name itself, such as pagination behavior, result scope, filtering semantics, or any operational traits. It neither contradicts nor enriches the 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four undocumented parameters, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness. It is appropriately short but not appropriately informative.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly hint, a minimal phrase like 'Search learning enrollments' is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly beyond making an unfiltered call. There is no information about supported finders, search query syntax, pagination, or returned data shape.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of q, limit, finder, or offset. The description does absolutely nothing to help an agent understand what values to provide or how the parameters affect the search. This is a critical gap.

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 clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('learning enrollments'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'get' tool and from searches over other enrollment types like benefit enrollments. However, it does not explicitly describe the scope of the search or what distinguishes it from related search tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_learning_enrollment or other search tools. There are no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusion criteria. The usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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