List employee tables

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the output shape (alias and columns) and the relationship to bamboohr_table_rows, which helps the agent know how the result is meant to be consumed.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the resource and examples, and the second sentence gives the crucial usage linkage to a sibling tool. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, and every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter discovery tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, gives concrete category examples, and tells the agent exactly how to use the returned alias. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

This tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics left unexplained. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than wasted parameter detail, earning the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('every tabular field in BambooHR'), and what is returned ('table alias and its columns'). The examples of job history, compensation, employment status, and custom tables make the scope concrete and distinguish it from listing employees or other entity types.

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 instructs the agent to 'Use the alias with bamboohr_table_rows,' providing a direct next step after calling this tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that no alternatives are genuinely competing for this metadata-discovery role.

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