My Documents (Personio)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that documents have e-signature status and download behavior, but doesn't elaborate on other behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, error cases). Adequate given annotation coverage.

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?

Exceptionally concise single sentence, front-loaded with primary purpose and a critical usage pattern. 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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and only two parameters described, the description is incomplete. Key aspects like pagination (cursor, limit), maximum bytes, and category filtering are omitted, leaving the agent uncertain about full capabilities.

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 0%, so description must compensate. Only documentId and download are explained; the other four parameters (limit, cursor, maxBytes, categoryId) are left undefined. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves HR documents and mentions e-signature status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like absences or profile. However, it could explicitly state the action verb (e.g., 'Retrieve') and scope, but the intent is clear.

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 a specific usage hint (documentId+download=true to fetch content), but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. For a tool with many siblings, this is insufficient.

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