search_active_employees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a valuable behavioral trait: the tool wraps an endpoint that returns 404 on the PRE Foundation backend, and it explains the default behavior for missing as_of_date. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, permissions, or error behavior beyond the known issue.

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 highly concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical known-issue note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and a known issue. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., fields in each employee object), which could be important for an agent, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the default for as_of_date but does not enrich dept_code semantics or offer format constraints. It provides minimal added value.

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 'List active employees as of a date', which identifies the verb (list), resource (active employees), and temporal scope. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_active_employees' which likely has a similar purpose, so it loses a point for lacking explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'list_active_employees' might be preferred, or any exclusions or prerequisites. The known issue note hints at unreliability but does not offer alternatives or usage conditions.

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