Training records

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds concrete facts about scope ('per employee', 'completed') and return content (dates, instructor, hours, credits, cost, notes). It does not discuss edge cases like missing employee IDs or pagination, but the disclosed context exceeds the annotated baseline.

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, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundant filler. Each clause 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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return fields, the per-employee scope, and a representative use case. The schema and annotations fill in safety and parameter details, so nothing essential 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%: employeeId and trainingTypeId are described in the schema, including the link to bamboohr_training_types. The description only restates that trainingTypeId is optional, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a bounded resource ('one employee's completed trainings'), and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bamboohr_training_types, which lists type definitions rather than per-employee records.

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?

It gives a clear operational context: 'Optionally limit to one training type' and 'To check who is missing a required training, call this per employee.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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