query_hr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Search', which implies a read-only operation, but provides no details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or output characteristics (e.g., pagination, result limits). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise with two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second suggests filter usage. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic search functionality but lacks details on return format, result limits, or any behavior beyond the search itself. It is adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that filters provide 'more targeted results', which provides context but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions and examples. The value is marginal.

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 searches the 'HR Knowledge Base', specifying the verb (Search) and resource (HR Knowledge Base). It mentions optional filters, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_compliance or query_legal, which have similar structures but different domains.

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 advises using optional filters for targeted results, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any prerequisites or when it should not be used.

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