offboarding_report

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

The safety profile is already declared by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and 'Read-only; it changes nothing' merely restates them. The description does add the inventory of what the report surfaces, but adds no permission requirements, scoping, or freshness/pagination behavior beyond that.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the payload inventory, the second disposes of the safety question. No filler, nothing repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description usefully previews report contents. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly sufficient; only the identity/format of user_id is left unaddressed.

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 carries the full burden for the single user_id parameter, yet it never mentions it — an agent cannot tell whether it takes a numeric ID, an email, or a username from the description. 'An agent' implies the target but supplies no format or acceptance detail.

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?

States a specific resource (an agent's offboarding state) and enumerates exactly what is returned: assigned open tickets, groups, role, last login. The framing 'before deactivating them' plus 'read-only; it changes nothing' cleanly separates it from the mutating sibling set_user_status and the narrower find_user/agent_workload 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?

The phrase 'before deactivating them' gives a clear use context — run this prior to offboarding an agent. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer agent_workload or find_user instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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