Consultants disponibles pour un staffing

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool sorts results by availability date, proposes priority profiles to activate, returns a runbook text for execution, and auto-resolves manager_id from a name. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with no contradictions.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, optional filters, sorting, priority profiles, equivalence to MCP prompt, and the return format with execution requirement. No superfluous information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is complete. It explains the tool's overall function, filtering, sorting, the runbook return format, and the fact that the model must execute the runbook. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: for 'competences', it explains that free text is mapped to tools via a dictionary; for 'manager_id', it states that it accepts either numeric ID or 'First Name Last Name' with automatic resolution, and defaults to the manager's team if absent. This complements the schema descriptions (100% coverage).

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: identifying available internal resources for staffing on a given time window, with optional filters by skills and perimeter. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning its equivalence to an MCP prompt and its specific use case for clients that don't handle prompts correctly. The verb 'identifies' and resource 'available internal resources' are specific.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for staffing on a specified time window. It mentions optional filters and explains that the tool returns a runbook that the model must execute. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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