Employee dependents

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious details beyond those annotations: national ID numbers are masked, and Benefits Administration permission is required. This helps agents anticipate auth failures and data formatting.

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 dense sentences deliver purpose, scope, a data-format caveat, and a permission prerequisite with no filler. All content earns its place and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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, optional-parameter list tool, the description plus schema covers what the tool does, how to scope it, what authorization is needed, and an important return-value behavior. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 sole parameter employeeId is already fully described in the schema as 'Internal employee id. Omit for all employees.' The description adds the nuance that omission returns everyone the key may see, but this is a modest extension of the schema's existing meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'dependents', and the scope: either one employee or all employees the key can see. The subject is distinct from sibling tools like get_employee or list_employees, so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool and how to scope it: pass employeeId for one employee or omit it for all visible dependents. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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