list_hr_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, whether inactive services are included, or rate limits. It merely restates the list action.

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, using a single sentence with clear examples. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., mentioning the parameter purpose, but it remains effective and not verbose.

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?

Despite having good schema coverage and annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return format, typical use cases, or behavior when no filters are applied. For a simple listing tool with optional params, more context would help.

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?

All three parameters (limit, query, active) have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists available HR services with examples (Onboarding, Offboarding, Benefits, Payroll, etc.), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_hr_service that would retrieve details of a single service.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the context of listing is implied, there is no guidance on not using it for single-service details or when to apply filters.

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