search_employees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it 'fetches all active employees and filters client-side,' which adds useful context about the tool's behavior (e.g., it retrieves all active data first, then applies filtering). However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like performance implications of client-side filtering, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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's moderate complexity (search with client-side filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral trait but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, more context would be beneficial to fully guide the agent.

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 already documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the searchable fields (name, email, title, department), which aligns with the schema's description for 'query.' No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search employees by name, email, title, or department.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (employees), and mentions the searchable fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_employees' or 'get_employee', which reduces clarity about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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 implies usage by stating it 'fetches all active employees and filters client-side,' suggesting it's for searching within the full active employee set. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_employees' (which might list without filtering) or 'get_employee' (which might fetch a single employee by ID). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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