list_all_employees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions including terminated employees, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), authentication needs, rate limits, or what data fields are returned. For a list operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and key differentiator (including terminated employees). The second sentence provides usage context efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and scope but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what employee data is returned, how pagination works beyond parameters, or any error conditions. For a list operation with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 all three parameters (limit, offset, ein). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all employees'), specifying it includes terminated ones for complete workforce history. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_employees' by explicitly including terminated employees, making the scope unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for complete workforce history'), implying it's for historical data including terminated employees. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'list_employees' (which presumably excludes terminated ones), missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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