get_tips_by_employee

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it discloses permission requirements (PAYMENTS_R for basic, EMPLOYEES_R for name enrichment), degradation behavior to IDs-only with a note, and the default date scope. This is more than the annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes permission notes in a compact manner. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no nested objects) and presence of output schema, the description covers the key context: purpose, default behavior, permission requirements, and degradation mode. It does not describe return format, but the output schema likely handles that. Slight gap: no explicit statement about what the emp-name note looks like, but overall complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the date range concept ('default: today') but does not detail the date_from/date_to parameters format or semantics beyond the schema's names and types. The schema itself is minimal (two nullable strings), so the description adds some value but not enough to fully clarify parameter behavior.

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 tool's purpose: returning a tip-out sheet with tips grouped by employee, defaulting to today. It uses a specific verb ('return') and names the resource ('tip-out sheet', 'grouped by employee'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sales_by_employee or list_tip_suggestions.

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?

It indicates when to use (default today, optional date range) and implies a read-only reporting context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the resource and the presence of sibling tools like get_sales_by_employee provide context. Lacks explicit 'use when... vs. otherwise' guidance.

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