resolve_employee_alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST) and a 'readonly-owner' tier, which hints at read-only behavior. However, it does not explain the effect of the active or useBothKeys parameters, nor what happens when both employeeID and employeeLink are provided. The description adds some context but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence followed by the endpoint and tier tag. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every element earns its place by either stating the purpose or providing actionable metadata.

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?

This tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a modest description. The description does not explain return values, error behavior, or parameter interactions. With 4 parameters and a specific purpose, the description is too minimal to be considered complete for an agent to use confidently without additional context.

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 only 25% (only employeeLink has a schema description). The description mentions 'employee ID or external link,' which partially maps to employeeID and employeeLink, but it leaves active and useBothKeys completely unexplained. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly but only covers half the parameters.

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: 'Find the employee IDs associated with an employee ID or external link.' It specifies a verb (find), a resource (employee IDs), and the input scope (employee ID or external link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_employees or get_employees, which handle broader employee lookups.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicit. The description explains what the tool does but does not mention alternatives or when to choose this over search_employees or get_employees. No exclusions are given, so it earns a 3 for implied usage rather than a 4 or 5.

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