List Employee Training

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description accurately lists the data returned. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any limitations, performance implications, or behavior when no filters are provided. It is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose and fields. It is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The list of fields is slightly long, but it remains clear and does not waste 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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of overlapping sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that all filters are optional, how to combine them, what a typical response looks like, or any caveats such as the client-side max_records limit. It also fails to differentiate from similar list tools, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 lists fields that map directly to the schema parameters (type, status, course name, institution, cost, reimbursement, dates) but does not add any extra meaning, such as filter combination behavior or default values. It simply echoes the parameter names without enhancing understanding.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('employee training course records'), and lists the key fields (type, status, course name, institution, cost, reimbursement, dates). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_education and list_skills.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing when it should be chosen over similar list tools such as list_education or list_skills.

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