hcm_search_public_workers

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral information beyond the verb 'Search'—no mention of pagination, result ordering, or any defaults. With annotations covering safety, the description still fails to add useful behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded, but it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase contains no fluff, yet it also contains no substantive content that earns its place. It is adequately concise but not sufficiently 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 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a two-word description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably understand the query format, result structure, or how this search differs from its many siblings. The description leaves nearly all essential context missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, but it does not. The four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset) are completely unexplained, leaving agents unsure what 'q' or 'finder' mean or how to construct a valid query.

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 'Search publicWorkers.' states a verb and a resource, so it is more than a tautology. However, it does not explain what a 'public worker' is or how this search differs from hcm_search_workers, leaving the agent to guess the scope. It is minimally clear but lacks any distinguishing detail.

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 like hcm_search_workers, hcm_get_public_worker, or other search tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent cannot make an informed routing decision.

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