get_employee_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that multiple entities are fetched in parallel for performance and that sections can be filtered, but does not discuss error behavior, authentication requirements, or data modification implications. The description implies read-only but does not explicitly state it.

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?

Description is concise, well-structured in three paragraphs: purpose, entities and performance, filtering and as_of_date. Every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 context about the auth parameters (data_center, auth_user_id, auth_password), which are critical for execution. With no annotations, the agent needs to know how these affect the call. The description does not cover error conditions or data freshness. Given the complexity (6 params, composite fetch), this is incomplete.

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 17% (only user_id described). The description adds meaning for sections (filtering to reduce API calls) and as_of_date (point-in-time queries), which are not documented in the schema. However, the auth parameters (data_center, auth_user_id, auth_password) remain undescribed. Overall, description improves parameter understanding but leaves gaps.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a complete employee profile by assembling data from multiple SF entities, listing the specific entities. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_employee_history, which focuses on historical changes, or search_employees for searching.

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?

Description explains that sections can be filtered to reduce API calls and that effective-dated entities accept as_of_date for point-in-time queries, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_compensation_analytics or get_org_chart. No exclusions or when-not-to-use mentioned.

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