list_hr_services

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral info: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond confirming it's a listing operation. With full annotations, the burden is lower, and the description doesn't contradict or extend.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes examples. No extraneous words; every part 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?

For a simple list tool with well-annotated safety and full parameter schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (HR services with examples). No output schema exists, but the examples give sufficient context. Slight improvement could be mentioning the return format, but not strictly needed.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters (active, query, limit) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage nuance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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's action ('List available HR services') and provides concrete examples (Onboarding, Offboarding, Benefits, Payroll). It is specific and distinguishes itself from many sibling list tools by focusing on HR services.

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 implies usage when one needs to know available HR services, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_hr_cases or list_hr_tasks. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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