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. It describes the return content but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, auth requirements, error handling). For a simple get operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise and well-structured: a high-level summary, then bullet points of returned data, then explicit parameter and return documentation. 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs sufficiently.

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?

The single parameter employee_id is described as 'The employee ID (EMPLID)', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title and type. Schema coverage is 0% but the description compensates well.

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 'get comprehensive employee profile' and enumerates the specific categories (personal data, current job, department, employment status). It distinguishes itself as the primary tool for employee information.

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 notes it is the primary tool for employee info and lists returned data, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., get_job_history for historical data). However, the scope is well-defined.

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