hr.search_employees

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

With no annotations, description carries full responsibility. It discloses return type (employee details, contact info) and the sensitive flag, but the phrase 'Set include_sensitive=true' implies sensitive data is excluded by default, contradicting the schema's default:true. This could mislead the agent about behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, with three short sentences directly covering purpose, return value, and an important option. No redundant words or extraneous detail.

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 straightforward search tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it explains search dimensions, return content, and the sensitive flag. However, the missing clarification about the include_sensitive default creates a small but notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters are described. The description adds little beyond the schema by essentially restating query and department semantics, and does not clarify the default value discrepancy for include_sensitive.

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 function with a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('employee directory'), and enumerates search dimensions (name, department, role). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like run_payroll_report or update_employee.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching for employee info by name/dept/role) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list makes it obvious, but explicit direction would be stronger.

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