company_employees

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose side effects. 'Advance employees' implies potential mutation or state changes, but the description does not specify whether this tool reads, writes, updates, or deletes data, nor does it mention any side effects or required permissions.

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 and superficially concise, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It does not structure information about purpose, behavior, or parameters, making it less useful than a slightly longer but more explicit description.

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 appears to operate in a complex domain with sibling tools for similar lifecycle operations, but the description provides no context about the employee lifecycle model, what receipts are, or what fields like bundle_json and payload_json contain. The available information is far too incomplete to call the tool safely.

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?

The schema lists seven parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description explains none of them. Required fields like project_id and bundle_json are unclear, and optional fields such as operation, entity_ref, and payload_json have no documented meaning or expected format.

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 mentions 'inspect or advance employees' and 'scoped lifecycle and verified receipts', but the actual operation is ambiguous. It does not clearly state what action is performed on employees or what 'verified receipts' refers to, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's core function.

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 the many sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or how it relates to similar employee or lifecycle tools, so an agent cannot determine appropriate usage.

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