List Employee Position History

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 disclosing behavioral traits. The description is limited to a single sentence stating the content of records; it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, pagination behavior (although the schema mentions max_records, that's not part of the description), or potential side effects. The verb 'Get' hints at read-only, but this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant content; every word contributes to clarity. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and object.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of the tool's purpose and the type of data returned, but it lacks details about the response structure (e.g., whether it returns a list, any default limits) and does not summarize the filtering capabilities. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate behavior confidently.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by listing key fields (position name, remuneration, pay level, dates) that correspond to several parameters, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema's explicit parameter descriptions. It neither clarifies parameter formats nor introduces any additional semantics.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('employee position (job) history records'), and it lists the included fields (position name, remuneration, pay level, commence/completion dates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or get_job, which likely address different job-related data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_jobs, get_employee). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. It only states what the tool does, implying use when position history is needed, but without explicit context.

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