hr_lookup

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

The description adds some useful behavioral context: it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher and executes under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it never discloses the possible mutations or destructive consequences aligned with the annotations (idempotent false, destructiveHint true), leaving an important gap for a tool that may act destructively.

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 compact, front-loaded, and clearly formatted with an action statement, a routing note, and an Args list. It wastes no words, although the spareness likely contributes to the semantic gaps.

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?

For a tool with an output schema and only two optional parameters, one might not need extensive detail, but the description still fails to specify what makes this action different from the many HR and dispatch siblings. An agent cannot confidently decide when to call this tool or understand what class of HR objectives are appropriate for `message`.

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 description does provide minimal value beyond the schema: `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is better than nothing, but with 0% schema description coverage, it still leaves the structure and accepted contents of `inputs` ambiguous and does not clarify how the two parameters should be combined.

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 only says 'Run the hr domain agent action `lookup`,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not say what the lookup returns, operates on, or accomplishes. It adds routing/scoping context but no functional definition, so an agent cannot tell what this tool is for beyond the literal name.

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 given about when to use hr_lookup versus alternatives like hr_chat, hr_live_cases, dispatch_domain_agent, or list_domain_actions. The routing note describes how the call executes, but not what objective should route here or when another tool is preferred.

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