List Employee Addresses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the output is a 'flat list' and that it spans 'across employees,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, potential performance implications of listing all addresses, or any details about the response format beyond flatness. Some behavioral context is added, but significant gaps remain.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences to convey the core purpose and a key distinction from an alternative. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description plus schema provide sufficient context for an agent. The note about get_employee adds useful context about where individual addresses can be found, partially compensating for the lack of an output schema. It could be more explicit about the structure of address records, but overall it is adequately complete.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. The description itself provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, but due to high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a flat list of employee addresses across all employees, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_employee by noting that individual addresses are included in that response, which helps differentiate the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when a flat, cross-employee list is needed) and explicitly mentions an alternative (get_employee for individual addresses). It does not list exclusions or more nuanced when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is clear enough for tool selection.

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