Get Employee Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states output contents but does not address permissions, side effects, error behavior, or any caveats. 'Get' implies read-only, but there is minimal behavioral context beyond that implication.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and provides the usage hint in the second, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the contents of the returned data. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure or error scenarios, but the listed detail categories soften this gap.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'code' parameter clearly with examples. The description adds valuable context by indicating the code comes from list_employees, which aids correct invocation beyond what the schema provides. Coverage is 100%, so the description meaningfully supplements it.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get full details for a single employee by Employee Code', specifying the resource (employee) and the key identifier. It also lists what details are included (contact details, addresses, tags, custom fields), and the verb 'get' distinguishes it from list_employees and other sibling 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 description explicitly instructs to 'Use list_employees first to find employee codes', providing a clear workflow and a named prerequisite tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name other alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance gives solid context for correct usage.

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