list_employees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure is limited. It adds context about the filtering logic but no additional safety or side-effect information. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with clear, front-loaded information: purpose first, then implementation detail. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description explains the core logic and usage context well, despite lack of output schema. Minor gaps: no mention of handling missing partyId (optional parameter), pagination details, or error cases. Still, it is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; for 'partyId', the description repeats the schema's text. The other two parameters ('page', 'perPage') lack descriptions in both schema and tool description. Baseline 3 for moderate 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 the tool lists employees of an organization using the partyId, and distinguishes it from general party listing by specifying 'Use this to answer "who works at X?" rather than enumerating all parties.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('to answer who works at X') and contrasts it with enumerating all parties, implying alternative tools. It also explains the underlying data relationship (returns parties whose 'organisation' field references the given partyId).

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