client_employee_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates by noting this is a 'slow path' that walks every client. It could mention more behavioral aspects like result format or potential timeouts, but the performance warning is valuable.

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 three sentences long with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage guidelines, and the third adds behavioral context. 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, performance characteristics, and guidance on alternatives. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'slow path' but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already explain each parameter adequately.

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 tool searches for employees by name or email across all clients, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'client_employees' by emphasizing the cross-client scope.

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 tells when to use this tool (when user doesn't know the client) and when to prefer 'client_employees' instead, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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