get_employee_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that records are effective-dated and ordered descending, and lists supported history types. However, it does not mention authentication requirements (auth parameters) or any side effects; for a read operation, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, each with clear purpose: intent, behavior, and supported types. No redundant information, well-structured 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not analyzed here), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and behavior (timeline of changes, ordering). It could mention pagination via limit, but overall it's complete for a history retrieval tool.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters documented). The description adds meaning for the 'history_type' parameter by mapping to EmpJob, EmpCompensation, EmpEmployment, which goes beyond the schema's enum labels. For other parameters, it adds no new info beyond the schema.

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 'Get the history of changes for an employee' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates three history types (job, compensation, employment), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_employee_profile or audit_employee_data, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_employee_profile, audit_employee_data). The description only describes functionality, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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