Table rows

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: 'Rows are unsorted; sort by date yourself.' It also clarifies the scope ('for everyone') without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are first, examples follow, and the important unsorted-data caveat is saved for the end. Every sentence 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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and the unsorted output behavior. It does not describe the return format, but there is no output schema to reconcile, and the essential call details are all present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mostly repeats the example alias values found in the schema, adding only the hint to fetch aliases from bamboohr_list_tables. Since the schema carries the semantic load, baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('rows of an employee table'), then scopes it to one employee or everyone with concrete examples (jobInfo, compensation, employmentStatus, custom tables). It clearly distinguishes itself from bamboohr_list_tables by instructing the agent to get valid aliases from that sibling, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool: whenever table rows are needed, and it points to bamboohr_list_tables for valid aliases. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative employee-data tools like bamboohr_get_employee, but the examples make the intended use evident, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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