list_employees

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'List employees' and gives a contextual hint. There is no mention of read-only nature, pagination behavior, sorting, or response contents. This leaves the agent to infer basic list semantics without additional guidance.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no redundant information, and the parenthetical adds a useful context hint without excessive length.

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?

This is a relatively simple list tool with no output schema, yet the description does not explain the response structure, pagination limits, or any default behaviors. The minimal detail is likely insufficient for an agent to fully understand what to expect from the call, especially given the lack of annotations.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (limit and offset) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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, using a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical 'for document owners/responsible persons' hints at a use case, though it is somewhat vague. It is distinct from other list tools like list_stores or list_organizations, though there are no direct sibling tools for employees.

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 a use case (for document owners/responsible persons), suggesting when this list might be needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tool is employee-specific, it appears to be the only option, but that is not explicitly clarified.

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