client_employee

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the return fields (name, hire/termination dates, etc.), but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives usage and output details. Every sentence earns its place with 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 existence of an output schema (not shown in description), the description does not need to explain return format. It covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output fields. Could mention that exact IDs are required or that it is a read operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant information beyond the schema (e.g., 'client_id' is not elaborated, 'employee_ids' is simply 'one or many'). The added value lies in output fields, not parameters.

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 'Pull full profile detail for one or more employees' which specifies the action and resource. It gives concrete examples ('show me John's full record') but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'client_employee_search' or 'client_employees'.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when the user asks ...' and gives example queries. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like the search variant.

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