get_employee

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the return payload scope ('Returns everything: personal info...') and critical data security behavior ('SSN, FEIN, and bank info are redacted'). It misses explicit read-only/safety declarations or error handling, but covers the key behavioral traits for HR data access.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a colon-delimited list of returned fields and a final security note. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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 lack of output schema, the description appropriately compensates by detailing the comprehensive return payload and redaction rules. It adequately covers the tool's behavior for a simple two-parameter read operation, though it could note error cases (e.g., invalid ID).

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation including the environment variable default for companyId. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, focusing instead on return values, which warrants the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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') with a clear resource ('full details for an employee') and identifier method ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'search_employees' (which implies filtering without ID) and 'update_employee' (write vs read).

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 phrase 'by ID' implies you must have the employee identifier, suggesting contrast with 'search_employees'. However, there is no explicit guidance like 'Use search_employees if you do not have the ID' or clarification on when to use 'get_direct_deposit' versus this comprehensive endpoint.

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