List employee fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it discloses policy restrictions on sensitive fields (pay, bank, national ID, etc.) and explains the meaning of the allowed flag. 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loading the core function and then adding policy context and usage tips. Each sentence adds information; it could be slightly tightened but is appropriately sized and well ordered.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by naming the exact return fields (id, name, API alias, type, allowed flag). It also covers the two parameters and the policy constraint. No obvious missing information an agent needs to call the tool correctly, though pagination/limits are not mentioned.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning with concrete usage examples ('shoe', 'hire') and explains the effect of includeOptions ('see the allowed values of list fields'), which goes modestly beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List every employee field in this BambooHR account') and enumerates the output attributes (id, name, API alias, type, allowed flag). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools that list other resources (tables, time-off types, etc.).

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 provides clear usage context: it explains that only fields with allowed:true can be read by get_employee or employee_report, and gives guidance on using search and includeOptions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no direct alternative exists among siblings for listing fields.

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