get_hr_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the type of data returned but does not discuss edge cases, error behavior, or required permissions. It is consistent with annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource while using parentheses for clarifying detail. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and clear annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and content of the response. It could be slightly richer about return format, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is sufficient.

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?

The single parameter user_identifier is fully documented in the schema with its description 'Username, email, or sys_id of the user', providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves an HR profile for a user, specifying the content areas (employment details, department, manager). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user (basic user info) and update_hr_profile (which modifies HR profile).

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 say when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It implies via the parenthetical that this is for HR-specific profile data, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like get_user or get_hr_case.

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