hcm_search_national_identifiers

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

The description discloses the sensitive nature requiring ORACLE_HCM_SENSITIVE=1 and approval, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. This adds significant context for an agent to understand access prerequisites. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or any other side effects beyond read-only, which are partially covered by the readOnlyHint.

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—two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is stated first, and the sensitive warning is front-loaded as the second sentence. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 search tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It lacks parameter explanations, return value description, and any usage context beyond the sensitive flag. An agent would not know how to construct a valid query or interpret results, making the tool difficult to use correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset). With no compensation from the description, an agent cannot infer the meaning of 'q' (query string?), 'finder' (a specific finder name?), or the pagination semantics. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding, which 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'national identifiers', which is a specific resource distinct from other search tools like hcm_search_workers. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'national identifier' refers to (e.g., employee national ID, social security number) or whether it searches across all workers, leaving slight ambiguity. It is distinguishable from the sibling hcm_get_national_identifier by the search vs get verb.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this search over hcm_get_national_identifier, hcm_search_public_workers, or other search tools, nor does it describe any preconditions like which finder to use. The only additional info is the sensitive requirement, which is about authorization, not usage context.

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