hcm_search_phones

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers that this is a read-only operation, so the description does not need to state that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of what is returned, pagination, or any caveats. Given the annotation, this is acceptable but minimal, hence a 3.

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—a single sentence with no fluff. However, conciseness here borders on under-specification. While it is efficiently short, it lacks substance, making it less useful than a slightly longer description with key details. A score of 3 reflects that it is not verbose but also not 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?

For a search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'q' refers to, what 'finder' does, or what the response shape is. There is no context about how search works, result ordering, or any limitations. An agent would have to guess or probe to use this effectively. This is clearly incomplete.

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%, meaning the description provides no information about any of the four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset). With zero coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it offers nothing. The schema itself gives only types and constraints, leaving semantics entirely unexplained. This is a significant 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 specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('worker phones'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar search siblings like hcm_search_workers, hcm_search_contacts, or hcm_search_emails. The resource is distinct enough, but the lack of any distinguishing detail keeps it from a 5.

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 alternatives. No mention of when to prefer this over other search tools, nor any context about typical use cases or prerequisites. The description provides no usage direction beyond the basic action.

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