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, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns all fields, includes custom fields, and optionally includes options for list fields. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies what the agent can expect.

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 concise sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the output, guiding search, explaining includeOptions, and directing downstream use. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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-only list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the purpose, output attributes, parameter usage, and how to use the results. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or response format, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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% with both parameters described ('Case-insensitive substring' and 'Attach the option list... Default false'). The description adds examples ('shoe', 'hire') and rephrases includeOptions as 'allowed values', which slightly enriches understanding but does not add critical new semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists every employee field (standard and custom) with specific attributes (id, name, API alias, type). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., bamboohr_list_employees) by focusing on fields, not people or time-off types. The purpose is explicit and actionable.

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 concrete usage instructions: 'Use search to find a field by name' and 'Set includeOptions to see the allowed values of list fields.' It also explains downstream usage by passing the alias/id to other tools. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the intended workflow is clear and contextually sufficient.

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