netsuite_get_employee

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 the tool 'Returns full employee details with expanded sub-resources,' which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read-only get-by-id, this is adequate but not rich.

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 consists of two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what the tool does and what the required parameter is. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema fields.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the return behavior ('full details with expanded sub-resources') and the parameter. It could be enhanced by mentioning error cases or response format, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema provides only 'id' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'id (string, NetSuite internal employee ID),' which gives the exact meaning and type. Since this is the only parameter and it is fully clarified, the description adds significant value 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 the tool's function: 'Get a single NetSuite employee by internal ID.' It specifies the resource (employee), the operation (get single), and the identifier type (internal ID). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool netsuite_get_employees (plural) and other NetSuite getters.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you need a single employee and have its internal ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives like netsuite_get_employees for listing, but the 'single' and 'by internal ID' phrasing makes the usage context clear. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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