hr_headcount

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

No annotations provided. Description implies read-only behavior by stating it produces a report, but does not explicitly declare no side effects, auth requirements, or data mutation. For a report tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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?

Description is concise: two sentences for purpose and behavior, then clean bullet-style parameter explanations. No redundant or irrelevant content. Front-loaded with key functionality.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere. Description covers the report contents (active employees, pending starts, departures) and parameters. Could add more on what 'flags' means (e.g., counts or lists), but overall sufficient for a report tool.

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 0% (no property descriptions in schema). Description compensates well: explains message as free-text objective, as_of_date as snapshot date with format and default, group_by with explicit allowed values (team, role, location, manager). Adds substantial meaning beyond names.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'produce' and clear resource 'current-headcount report'. Details what the report includes: active employees by team, role, location; flags pending starts and recent departures. Distinct from sibling HR tools like hr_lookup or hr_compliance_check.

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?

Clearly states the tool produces a headcount report. Context implies usage for retrieving snapshot employee data. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among numerous HR tools.

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