check_employee_existence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool verifies existence, but does not indicate the return format (e.g., boolean), error handling, or side effects. For a verification tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single 10-word sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output, error cases, or behavior for multiple IDs, which would improve completeness.

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% (the parameter 'id' is described as 'One or more SeaTalk ID(s)'). The description repeats 'via SeaTalk ID' but does not add additional meaning such as format or multiple ID handling. 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 clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'employees exist in the organization via SeaTalk ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_employee_profile or send_message_to_bot_user, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for existence checks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_employee_profile could also check existence). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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