list_active_employees

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the 404 known issue on the PRE backend. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or read-only nature (though 'List' implies read-only). The known issue adds real value beyond the schema but the description could be more forthcoming.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence and a relevant known-issue second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, though the known-issue block adds length. It is efficient and well-structured for its complexity.

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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers purpose and a critical environmental limitation. It does not explain return values, but that is arguably inferred from the tool name. The known issue is a key piece of context that makes this adequately complete.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description merely restates their purpose ('as of a given date', 'scoped to a department') without adding new syntax or format details, thus providing no added value over the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('active employees'), and qualifiers ('as of a given date', 'optionally scoped to a department'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_resigned_employees and search_active_employees by specifying 'active' and 'list' rather than 'search'.

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 known issue provides implied usage guidance: the tool is only usable when the Report Center endpoints are deployed (MAYO), not on PRE where it returns 404. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when to prefer other sibling tools, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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