Workforce Survey Template (HR lens)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining which output components are included (items, response scales, validated instrument each block is modelled on) and adding critical caveats: items are illustrative and need licensing for defensible measurement, plus survey-hygiene and people-data governance notes. This pragmatic caution is not present in annotations and is highly valuable for safe use.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and structured logically: assembly, output contents, and caveat/next-step. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists return contents (items, scales, instrument references, notes), which gives the agent a solid expectation. It also covers licensing governance and points to the sibling tool for refinement. For a template-assembly tool with good annotations, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters (constructs and population) already have clear descriptions, and constructs are fully enumerated. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the construct names, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 assembles a workforce survey from specific construct blocks (engagement, inclusion, etc.), lists the outputs (items, response scales, validated instrument references), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'develop-instrument' by positioning that as a refinement step. The verb 'Assemble' plus resource is specific and non-generic.

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 gives a clear when-to-use context: assembling from pre-defined validated-style blocks. It explicitly points to develop-instrument for refinement, which helps with alternatives. However, it does not mention when not to use other sibling survey-related tools like design-study or people-analytics-preset, so it lacks a full exclusion set.

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