client_employees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what will be returned (ID, name, work email, hire date, status) and implies a read-only listing. No side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable for a listing tool. Could mention pagination or sorting, but it's still strong.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the key action and return information. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 input schema is complete, the output schema exists (though not shown), and sibling tools are available, the description provides all necessary context to use the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns.

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% and parameter descriptions are already clear. The description adds context by showing parameter usage in examples and clarifying the 'status' enum values ('active', 'inactive', 'all'). This matches the schema, so the description reinforces but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('List the employees at a single client') and specifies the resource. It provides example user queries, making the purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'client_employee_search' by emphasizing 'single client'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given with example user phrases ('who works at Acme', 'show me active employees at client XYZ'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context of a sibling 'client_employee_search' implies an alternative for multi-client searches.

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