audit_employee_data

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

Describes what is validated and that findings are returned with severity levels. But it does not state whether data is modified, auth requirements (though auth params exist), or other side effects. No annotations provided.

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?

Short two-sentence description with clear purpose and list of checks. Could be slightly more efficient by front-loading the key action, but overall no waste.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks detail on parameter usage (especially 'checks' and auth), making it incomplete for the tool's complexity and sibling 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?

With schema description coverage at 20%, description should compensate. It lists checks in prose but does not explain the 'checks' parameter or auth-related parameters (data_center, auth_user_id, auth_password). Only user_id is obvious.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs data integrity checks on a single employee, listing specific validations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_data_anomalies' or 'reconcile_data'.

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?

Implied usage is auditing a single employee, but no when-not or alternatives are provided. Given many sibling tools, explicit guidance would help.

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