who_are_my_technicians

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds a useful safety note ('no secrets') and clarifies the entities returned, but doesn't describe response format or pagination—behavioral details that would add more value beyond the 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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the trigger questions and immediately state the outputs. Every phrase contributes meaning ('no secrets' adds a valuable qualifier).

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, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers the scope of returned data and adds a relevant safety qualifier, leaving no major 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?

With zero parameters, the schema requires no explanation, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate further and doesn't attempt to, which 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 uses specific verbs ('Answer', 'Lists') and names the exact resources (technicians, office users, service routes), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes from performance-focused sibling tools like 'who_did_the_most_jobs'.

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 example questions ('Who are my technicians?', etc.) give explicit context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't state exclusions or point to alternatives like 'list_service_routes' for route-only queries, so it falls short of a 5.

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