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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default window is the next 60 days when dates are omitted, and the payload enriches each employee with onboarding progress and held 1:1s. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifies the population, the range, and the returned context, with the default window given parenthetically where it is most useful. No filler sentences or restated title.

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 no-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the meaningful unknowns: what population is selected, what the default window is, and what enrichment fields come back. Only the shape/size of the returned list is left unstated, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented as YYYY-MM-DD in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics the schema does not carry: the two dates form an inclusive range and omitting them defaults to the next 60 days, which materially changes how an agent calls it with no arguments.

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 names a specific population (employees whose probation ends) scoped by a date range and states what accompanying data comes back (onboarding plan progress, 1:1 meetings). It is clearly a read/report tool rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling find_people, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and the '(default the next 60 days)' hint, which tells an agent the tool is useful for upcoming-probation checks. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as find_people or pending when the agent wants a broader or narrower employee list.

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