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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It usefully adds the permission scoping and the exclusion of sensitive fields, but omits pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the field-scope boundary. No filler.

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?

With no output schema and five completely undocumented parameters including pagination and filtering, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly. It should explain what query/state/locationIds filter and how paging works.

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 0% and none of the five parameters (limit, offset, query, state, locationIds) are documented in the description. The 'role/location access' phrase hints loosely at location scoping but gives no filter syntax, defaults, or semantics for query/state.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Find ... employees') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, locations). It's clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_location_employees or get_employee_record.

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 'no contact or I-9 data' clause implicitly signals when to reach for a detail tool instead, and 'within current role/location access' implies scope. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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