DataLayer MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a listing/filtering operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens when no results are found. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key filtering capabilities without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of employee objects with what fields), pagination behavior, error conditions, or how filtering logic works (AND/OR). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'filterable by seniority and function', which aligns with two parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining how filters combine or providing examples). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('List employees') and resource ('at a company'), with specific filtering capabilities ('filterable by seniority and function'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'company_headcount' or 'company_jobs' by focusing on individual employees rather than aggregate counts or job postings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_people' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_people', 'lookup_person', or 'enrich_person'. The description mentions filtering by seniority and function, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a company domain) or when other tools might be more appropriate for different use cases.

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