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

The read-only behavior is reinforced by both the description and the readOnlyHint annotation, with no contradiction. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool is purely observational and does not claim or execute work, which clarifies its side-effect profile for an agent.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, lists the main data categories, and closes with a usage cue and a safety clarification. Every phrase 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete: it names the tool's content areas, states when to use it, and clarifies that it performs no work. No output schema exists, but the agent has enough information to invoke the tool appropriately.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is little semantic burden on the description. The baseline for this case is 4, and the description's enumeration of what is viewed adds helpful context even though no parameters need explanation.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Read-only view of the AI Workforce' and enumerates the specific information it surfaces: hired roles, queue depth, staged changes, usage advisor, and recent runs. This is a specific resource with clear scope, and it is distinguishable from action-oriented sibling tools like workforce_check_in or workforce_report by the explicit 'never claims or executes work.'

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 gives a direct trigger condition: 'Use when the user asks how their workforce is doing.' It also sets an important exclusion by stating it does not claim or execute work. It does not name specific alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for agent selection.

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