list_resigned_employees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the API route returns 404 on PRE Foundation backend and is kept for future MAYO deployment. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, authentication, or other operational behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and followed by a critical known-issue note. Three sentences total, with 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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. The known issue provides essential deployment context, but it lacks explicit return type information or a clear directive like 'do not use in PRE Foundation'—the caveat is implied rather than stated.

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% and all parameters (start_date, end_date, dept_code) have clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states 'List employees who resigned or took leave within a date range,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_active_employees and search_active_employees by focusing on resigned/leave status.

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 environment-specific guidance via the known issue (404 on PRE Foundation backend), implying the tool should not be used there. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use beyond the environment caveat, but the context is clear.

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