check_hr_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by disclosing the conditional execution (attempts a skill, else returns employee + service context) and the parity with ServiceNow HRSD. This goes beyond annotations and is useful, though it doesn't detail the exact output format.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and fallback behavior, while the second adds parity context. It is concise and structured effectively, though the parity reference could be seen as mildly extraneous.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must clarify what the tool returns, but it doesn't. It mentions 'return the employee + service context' as a fallback, but does not specify what happens when the skill is available (presumably an eligibility result). This ambiguity leaves an agent uncertain about the exact return format, which is a significant gap for a simple 2-parameter tool.

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 both parameters clearly documented ('Employee sys_id, user_name, or email' and 'HR service sys_id or name'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 action ('Check') and the resource ('eligibility for an HR service/policy'), and it distinguishes from HR case creation/management siblings by focusing on eligibility evaluation. The mention of a skill and fallback adds specificity. It could be more explicit about what 'eligibility' means, but overall the purpose is clear.

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 the tool is used when an eligibility check is needed, and it mentions a conditional path ('via skill when available'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_hr_profile or list_hr_services, or state when not to use it. The guidance is present but implicit.

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