List Employee Reviews

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (type, status, reviewer, score, review dates) and implies that full performance review forms are not included. However, it does not describe output format or pagination behavior, though the schema's max_records parameter already notes the API does not paginate. For a read-only listing tool, this is solid but not exhaustive.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and scope, the second gives a cross-reference to a sibling tool. No wasted words.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core context: what records are returned and which tool to use for full forms. It does not describe the exact response structure, but the schema covers parameter details. It is nearly complete for a listing tool, though it could mention the response shape explicitly.

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% and every parameter is well-documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only lists fields that appear in the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'employee review records' with examples (probation reviews, performance check-ins). It explicitly directs users to list_performances for full performance review forms, clearly distinguishing this tool's scope.

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 explicit guidance: it states what reviews are included and tells the agent to see list_performances for full performance review forms. This is an explicit alternative named, so the agent knows when to use this tool vs the sibling.

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