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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the filtering relationship via the `organisation` field, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination behavior, result limits, or what fields are returned. This is adequate but not particularly rich.

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 short sentences, all of which earn their place. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with the exact filtering behavior, and ends with practical usage guidance. There is no redundant or vague 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 simple read-only list tool with one required parameter, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the target partyId, the meaning of the result, and a use case. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or output shape, but the schema provides defaults and the absence of an output schema lowers the burden on the description. Overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 50%, yet the description mostly restates what the partyId schema already says: returns parties whose `organisation` field references the partyId. It adds no meaningful documentation for the undocumented pagination parameters `page` and `perPage`, leaving a noticeable gap. The description does not compensate for the incomplete schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the people who work at a given organisation party.' It also clarifies the exact mechanics by saying it returns parties whose `organisation` field references the given partyId. This clearly distinguishes it from generic party listing tools like get_parties or filter_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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to answer who works at X?' It also provides an exclusion by saying 'rather than enumerating all parties.' However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond that one contrast.

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