list_employees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's additional note that PINs are never returned adds meaningful privacy behavior beyond structured metadata. This is a useful disclosure not present in annotations, earning a score above baseline.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, ~11 words), front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. No redundant information or fluff.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects), the output schema exists to define return values, and annotations cover safety, the description provides the additional needed context (permission requirement, PIN redaction). It is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it could mention pagination behavior more explicitly.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters beyond the word 'page'. While parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving semantics only partially inferable.

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 a specific action ('Return a page of employees') and resource ('employees'), with a unique constraint ('PINs never returned') that distinguishes it from other employee-related tools like get_employee. This fully satisfies the purpose clarity requirement.

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 use for paginated employee listing and provides a permission prerequisite ('Requires EMPLOYEES_R'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_employee for single records or list_shifts for related data. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly specified.

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