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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (site, code, WhatsApp connection status, last registration date), but says nothing about ordering, pagination or result caps for a list that could be long.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then use cases, in one dense sentence pair. The trailing English gloss is mild duplication of the title but aids matching in a bilingual domain; otherwise no wasted wording.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field context and usage scenarios. Only ordering/pagination behavior and the exact scope of the default (all active employees) are left unstated, which are minor gaps.

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 all three parameters carry their own descriptions, including defaults (todos los sitios, activos) and the multi-company condition for empresa. The description only indirectly hints at the sitio filter via the "obra norte" example and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: a personnel roster that includes site, code, WhatsApp connection status and last check-in date. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like dar_de_alta_empleados or desactivar_empleado, though it never names a sibling to contrast against for overlap cases such as quien_no_ha_llegado.

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?

Provides concrete triggering questions ("¿quién todavía no se conecta?", "¿cuántas personas tengo en la obra norte?") and a temporal cue ("antes de dar de alta o dar de baja a alguien"). It gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for headcount-per-site or absence queries, which a sibling may cover.

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