get_performance_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It describes input and return but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The status code mapping is helpful but does not cover broader behavioral context.

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, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. The status code list and parameter documentation are structured and easy to parse. However, the docstring style ('param', 'return') adds slight redundancy with the schema. No wasted words, but could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema, the description minimally mentions return value as 'List of performance reviews'. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool, but lacks details on the structure or fields of each review, pagination, or error handling. With moderate tool complexity, it is marginally complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: employee_id is explained as 'The employee ID (EMPLID)', year as 'Optional filter by review year', and status as 'Optional filter by status code' with a list of valid codes and their meanings. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 tool gets 'performance appraisals for an employee', which aligns with the tool name. It specifies the resource (employee performance reviews) and the action (get). Among siblings, it is distinct as it targets a single employee by ID, not broader search or detailed review retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_reviews' or 'get_review_details'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context such as only for a specific employee. The agent must infer usage from the parameter list alone.

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