hcm_search_workers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds a small amount of behavioral context through the q-filter example and the mention of limit/offset, but it does not describe pagination defaults, response shape, or what 'finder' means. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with 'Search workers', and the example earns its place by showing realistic usage. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool, though the brevity contributes to missing parameter explanations for finder and offset.

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 too thin. It does not explain finder semantics, expected return structure, pagination behavior, or how this search relates to hcm_get_worker and hcm_search_public_workers. The example helps but does not make the tool fully invocable by an agent facing a real choice among many siblings.

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 only 25%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It lists all four parameter names and gives a useful q-filter example, but 'finder' remains completely unexplained and limit/offset semantics are only implied by their names, not described.

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 resource ('workers'), and names the main query parameters, so an agent can tell this is a list/search operation rather than a single-record get. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like hcm_search_public_workers or hcm_get_worker, so full clarity among closely related tools is missing.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_worker for fetching a single worker or hcm_search_public_workers for public data. The example implies a q-filter usage pattern, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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