get_staff_directory

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses case-insensitive search, empty search returns ~20 alphabetically, and return fields. Missing info on pagination or max results, but overall transparent.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states action and resource, second lists return fields, third provides usage constraints and related tools. Front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

Description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter behavior, related tools, and output fields. Given single optional parameter, existing output schema, and sibling tool context, it is fully 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 100% with detailed parameter info (default, case-insensitive, example). Description adds value by explaining the parameter's role in context (always search by name) and linking to other tools, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 clearly states verb 'Search', specific resource 'Appinventiv's staff directory', and scope 'by name'. Differentiates from sibling get_employee_details by noting it returns only basic fields and that full profile lookup requires a different tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Always search by name — browsing the full directory is not supported.' Also states that employee_id is needed for get_employee_dsrs() and suggests get_employee_details() for full profile, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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