People-Analytics Preset (HR lens)

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds valuable context about what it returns: 'construct definition, validated instruments to license, example metrics, design considerations, common pitfalls, data sources, and people-data governance flags.' It also notes the handoff behavior, making the tool's behavioral scope 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?

Three sentences deliver a complete picture: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The description is front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value without unnecessary filler.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient. It explains the full set of returned content, the domain coverage, and the downstream workflow, so an agent has complete context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description merely restates the enum values for 'topic' and does not add any new semantic detail about parameter usage or constraints 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Frame a people-analytics study with a domain preset,' and lists all six topic areas. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as the starting point that hands off to design-study, develop-instrument, and assess-ethics.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use to start any HR/workforce research,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also contextualizes the workflow by naming downstream tools, which implies when this tool is not needed (after framing is complete).

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