Changed employees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it defines inserted/updated/deleted semantics, notes edits to job, compensation, or employment status tables, and states the newest-first ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences each earn their place: the first defines the tool's scope, the second states sort order, and the third references the sibling tool for follow-up detail. The most important information is front-loaded, with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with two parameters, full schema documentation, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what changed means, how results are sorted, and how to get current employee details. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough structural context to understand the tool's purpose and follow-up path.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by mapping enum labels to real-world meanings: new hires = Inserted, edits = Updated, removals = Deleted. This helps the agent choose the type parameter more accurately than the schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List employees whose record changed since a timestamp.' It enumerates the three change categories (Inserted, Updated, Deleted), which fully clarifies what 'changed' means. It also differentiates itself from bamboohr_get_employee by pointing there for current values.

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 for when to use the tool: when a changed-record list is needed after a timestamp. It routes the agent to bamboohr_get_employee for current values, providing a concrete alternative. It does not explicitly state exclusions versus other list-style siblings, but the scope is clear enough.

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