Changed employees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: output is limited to IDs and timestamps (no field values), results are 'Newest first', and the tool covers inserted/updated/deleted changes. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without an output schema.

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 earning its place: the first states the core purpose and change types, the second specifies output shape and ordering, and the third routes to the sibling tool for current values. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and contains zero filler words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying that only IDs and timestamps are returned and that ordering is newest-first. It also mentions the three change types, which is essential for understanding output. Missing details like pagination or whether 'since' is inclusive are minor gaps, but for a simple two-parameter read-only tool the description is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%: the 'since' parameter is fully documented with pattern and example, and 'type' has an enum with default. The description adds minor conceptual mapping (new hires = Inserted, edits = Updated, removals = Deleted), but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'List employees whose record changed since a timestamp', then enumerates the three change types (Inserted, Updated, Deleted) and states the output scope ('Ids and timestamps only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bamboohr_list_employees (listing all) and bamboohr_get_employee (current values), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly points to an alternative: 'Use bamboohr_get_employee to see the current values', which tells the agent when to switch tools. It also states that only IDs and timestamps are returned, implying you should not use this tool if field values are needed. However, it does not mention other relevant siblings (e.g., bamboohr_list_employees) or provide broader when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of full explicitness.

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