get_employee_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it calls PA and company-wide Working and Education exports, then filters down to the target employee—revealing multi-call behavior and internal data scope. It could mention potential performance implications or authentication needs, but the core mechanics are 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?

The description is three sentences, each with a distinct role: first defines the purpose, second explains the internal mechanics, third gives a concrete when-to-use scenario. No filler or redundancy.

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 moderately complex aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, implementation, and usage context. It does not specify the exact return structure of the profile, but given the clarity of the aggregation source fields, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking issue.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that employee_number is the key filter and the whole point of the aggregation, but it doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema. The language parameter is not discussed further in the description, so no extra value is provided there.

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 aggregates one employee's master, work history, and education into a single profile. The verb 'aggregate' plus the specific resource scope distinguishes it from sibling raw exports and listing tools.

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?

It explicitly provides a usage scenario: 'Useful when an assistant needs a complete picture without having to call three raw tools and join the results.' This tells the agent when to use this tool over alternatives such as export_working_history or export_education_history.

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