search_employee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as search behavior (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity) or result structure.

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, which is concise but lacks structure for a tool with multiple parameters. A more structured format (e.g., listing parameters briefly) would improve clarity without adding much length.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, but the description does not mention the output schema or return format. It adequately addresses the core purpose but lacks details on optional parameters and results.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'name' parameter implicitly but provides no details on 'limit' or 'instance'. The description only partially explains the parameters.

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 ('Search') and the resource ('employees') with a specific filter ('by name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_records and search_across_instances by targeting employees specifically.

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 implies usage for searching employees by name but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_records or search_across_instances. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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