Get employee

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: how omitted employeeId is interpreted, what happens when fields is omitted, and that missingFields reflects fields that may be empty or hidden from the API key. This discloses a real visibility limitation.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second covers the two optional-behavior decisions, and the third explains the missingFields semantics. The most decision-relevant information 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 read operation with two optional parameters and strong safety annotations, this is complete. It covers the purpose, default behavior, self-record behavior, and what missingFields means. Without an output schema, the explicit mention of missingFields is especially useful and nothing needed to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter mechanics are already well documented. The description still adds meaning by listing example standard fields, mentioning custom fields, and explaining what the default field set is. The missingFields note also clarifies what the fields parameter's result will contain.

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 'Read one employee's field values', naming a specific verb, resource, and field scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by emphasizing 'one employee' and even explains how to read the API key owner's own record.

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 usage context: omit employeeId to read your own record and omit fields for a sensible default set. It does not explicitly name bamboohr_list_employees as the alternative for listing employees or retrieving IDs, but the singular/plural contrast and the concrete omit-behavior guidance make the intended use clear.

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