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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior that annotations cannot: the access scope ('Available to every staff member') and the exact return payload (ID, first/last name, role, is_you). It does not discuss pagination beyond what the schema's limit field already explains, so it falls short of 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by access scope, return shape, a parameter hint, and sibling routing. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with no repetition of the name or 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields so the agent knows what comes back, plus access scope and sibling alternatives. For a zero-required-param read lookup this is complete enough to call correctly without further inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already documents limit, search, and assignable_to thoroughly. The description restates the assignable_to behavior ('list only staff whose role can access tickets or orders') and frames its purpose via the ticket-write/order-write example, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Find colleagues by name to get their staff user IDs') and names the two most confusable siblings, team-tool and team-management-tool, with the boundary between them. An agent can distinguish this lookup tool from the team-management siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for staff IDs (e.g. the employees list on ticket-write/order-write), use team-tool for full member details, and team-management-tool for invitations and role changes. It also gives the selection condition for assignable_to. When-to-use and when-to-prefer-alternatives are both covered.

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