list_employees

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the key behavioral detail about the filtering logic (organisation field references partyId). It doesn't disclose pagination or embedding behavior, but given annotations cover safety, this is acceptable but not 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. No filler. Efficient.

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, combined with the schema and annotations, provides enough for an agent to call this correctly for the main use case. It lacks explicit mention of pagination defaults or embed usage, but these are in the schema. Given the low complexity, it is adequately 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?

Description does not add information beyond the schema. partyId is described in schema, embed is also described. It does not clarify pagination parameters. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, resulting in insufficient parameter guidance.

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?

States the operation precisely: listing employees of an organisation. It explicitly notes the return condition (parties referencing the given partyId) and distinguishes from enumerating all parties. Clear and specific.

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?

Gives a clear use-case ('answer who works at X') and tells to avoid using it to enumerate all parties. It doesn't name specific alternative tools but implies the distinction, which is sufficient for the agent to choose appropriately.

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