get_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Since this is a read-only fetch operation, the description adequately signals non-mutating behavior by its wording ('Get details'). It does not add notes about permissions, caching, or error behavior, but for a simple retrieval the implicit read-only nature is reasonably clear.

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?

Extremely efficient — a single purpose sentence plus one parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place, especially the ID/GUID distinction that would be invisible without it. Well front-loaded with the main purpose first.

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?

With an output schema present (covering return values), the description need not explain response format. For a 1-parameter, no-nested-objects tool, the description handles the essential ambiguity (ID format) and the read-only nature is clear. The only gap is no explicit safety/read-only confirmation given absent annotations, but the tool's nature makes this low-risk.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does excellently. The crucial distinction between the human-readable ID (e.g., '000001') and the internal GUID is a critical semantic clarification that entirely prevents misuse. This is high-value parameter documentation that the bare string schema could not convey.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get details for a specific employee by ID'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like list_employees (which lists all) and get_customer/get_vendor (different entity), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context is implied: you use this when you have a specific employee ID and need that employee's details, versus list_employees for enumerating. However, there's no explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance. The id parameter guidance orients the user but doesn't discuss exclusions or alternatives.

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