hr.generate_offer_letter

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses generating an offer letter but omits side effects (e.g., does it send an email, create a record, require permissions?). Missing behavioral traits like authorization needs or irreversible actions.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Could be improved by front-loading the core action and adding brief context, but it is efficient.

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?

No output schema, no details on what is returned (e.g., document URL, text). For a sensitive HR tool, more context on workflow integration is needed. Schema only covers parameters, leaving the agent uninformed about outcomes.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'Annual salary offer'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning 'compensation and start date', so baseline 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 action (generate), the resource (formal offer letter), and inputs (compensation and start date). It uniquely positions the tool among siblings like hr.review_candidate or hr.update_employee.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., candidate approval), and no when-not-to-use conditions. The description is too minimal for an agent to decide context.

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