Kooperativa: company current employees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'lightweight profile previews', that pagination is offset-based, and that the response includes total/pages. This is useful operational detail for a read-only listing tool, though it does not cover edge cases or potential failure behavior.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action, scope, and required input; the second describes return shape and the natural next step. Information is front-loaded and the routing to enrich_person is placed exactly where a user would need it.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it lists, how to identify the company, what the response looks like, and how to continue processing a result. It leaves some detail implicit, such as exact profile fields, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description adds the 'offset pagination (total/pages)' concept, which gives page and per_page parameters meaningful context. However, it mostly restates company_id as 'numeric', and it does not explicitly describe how page/per_page behave beyond the schema defaults.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List people currently working at a company' and clearly identifies the required input ('numeric company_id'). The word 'currently' differentiates it from sibling kooperativa_company_past_employees, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for current-employee lists keyed by company_id. It also provides a downstream workflow by routing result IDs to kooperativa_enrich_person. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name kooperativa_company_past_employees, but the 'currently working' language makes the primary use case clear.

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