search_employees

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context via the 'readonly-owner' tier and endpoint mapping, but lacks details on filtering behavior, pagination, or response format, leaving significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by the endpoint and tier tag. Every piece earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is severely incomplete. The agent is left without critical information on how filters combine, what includeData does, or what the return payload looks like.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain undocumented parameters like fname, lname, officeIDs, includeData, or extra_filters, so the agent has almost no guidance on how to construct a valid search.

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 it searches for employees (technicians, sales reps, office staff) and returns matching IDs, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling get_employees, leaving some ambiguity about when to use search vs. retrieval.

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 implies usage for searching employees by criteria, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools like get_employees.

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