Add Employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details like permissions, side effects, or idempotency. It merely says 'Adds a new employee,' which reveals nothing about consequences or requirements, similar to the low-scoring update_drive example.

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 concise sentence that avoids bloat, but it is under-specified. It earns its place as a basic purpose statement, yet it lacks the substance needed for a fully effective tool description, so it's not particularly well-rounded.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no information about input expectations, return values, or edge cases, leaving the agent without critical context for correct usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of the three required parameters (name, department, salary). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter meaning completely unexplained.

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 adds a new employee, with a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that list, search, or compute. However, it offers no additional specifics beyond the action, so it's not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another sibling would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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