get_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes a 'tier: readonly-owner' tag which implies read-only access, but doesn't disclose what fields are returned, whether the employee must exist (error behavior), or any auth/access implications. Some safety signal is present via the tier tag, but it 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?

Two concise sentences with a useful endpoint mapping and tier tag. Every word earns its place with no fluff. Could arguably be more detailed given the low coverage, but the structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is reasonably adequate. It communicates the purpose, endpoint, and read-only tier. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% param coverage, it could describe what 'full profile details' includes or clarify the response shape to help the agent anticipate results.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level detail. The single parameter employee_id is described only by its name in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what constitutes a valid employee_id (format, lookup by ID vs other identifier), though the single-param simplicity somewhat mitigates the gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Get full profile details for a single employee'). Distinguishes well from sibling list_employees by specifying it returns full profile details for a single employee. The API endpoint mapping adds clarity.

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 context via 'single employee' vs the list_employees sibling, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other tools or provide exclusions. Context is clear enough to differentiate from list_employees, but no when/when-not guidance is given.

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