list_employees

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

This is a read-only listing operation, so no destructive/mutating disclosure is needed. The description transparently documents output defaults (compact format by default, verbose switch), the leading count line, and the active_only default filtering. It conveys the tool's behavior well beyond what a bare schema would show.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a compact behavior overview, and bullet-style Args section. Each sentence adds value. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but the information density is high and well-organized.

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?

For a listing tool with an output schema, pagination, and a count-only mode, the description covers all key operational aspects: pagination mechanics, formatting modes, defaults. The output schema handles return-value documentation. It's complete for this tool's complexity level.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains all four params (active_only, verbose, limit, offset) with semantics beyond the schema, including defaults, max values, special-case behavior (limit=0 = count only), and active_filter default. This fully compensates for the zero schema coverage.

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 'List all employees' with a specific verb+resource, and further distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the output format (compact one-line-per-employee, count-only mode, full JSON with verbose). It's unambiguous and differentiates from list_customers and list_vendors.

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 solid usage guidance covering pagination (offset, limit), count-only mode (limit=0), and output format selection (verbose=true). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool vs alternatives like get_employee, but the context of listing vs single-fetch is reasonably implied.

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