list_hr_services

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default filtering, or return format. It mostly restates the read-only nature of the tool without going beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 a single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes useful examples. There is no wasted or redundant content.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names the entity type and examples, and combined with the schema's parameter details, an agent can infer the tool's basic behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of return fields, but this is acceptable given the straightforward nature of the 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?

The input schema has full (100%) description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples of HR services do not add meaningful detail about the parameters themselves, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'HR services', with concrete examples (Onboarding, Offboarding, Benefits, Payroll) that disambiguate it from sibling tools like list_hr_tasks or get_hr_service. It is specific and easy to interpret.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hr_service or list_hr_tasks, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the name and examples.

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