list_employees

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds transparency by explaining the data relationship: returns parties whose 'organisation' field references the given partyId. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing partyId) but covers the core behavior well.

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, front-loading the action and key constraint. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 list tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description explains the core logic and relationship. It could mention pagination or embed usage but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and basic usage.

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% (only partyId and embed have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters. It does not elaborate on page or perPage, leaving their semantics to the schema defaults. With moderate coverage, the description provides minimal extra value for parameters.

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 explicitly states it lists people working at a given organisation, specifying the verb 'List', the resource 'people who work at a given organisation party', and the key parameter 'partyId'. It also distinguishes itself from enumerating all parties, providing clear purpose.

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 directly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this to answer "who works at X?" rather than enumerating all parties.' This gives explicit context and differentiation from sibling tools like filter_parties or get_parties.

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