Get Employee Directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (array), the scope (company-wide), and the included fields, which is meaningful behavioral detail. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple read-only directory getter this is reasonable.

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 is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action and scope, then enumerates the return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is almost complete. It names the return type, scope, and representative fields, though 'and more' is slightly vague. Still, it gives an agent enough context to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the schema already covers everything.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'company-wide employee directory', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-employee (singular). It also specifies the return type (array of employee objects) and key fields, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 phrase 'company-wide employee directory' conveys clear context: use when you need the full directory rather than an individual employee. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it misses the highest bar for when-not-to-use guidance.

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