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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that omitting company_id returns all roster rows visible to the caller, including their own employment rows and rows from companies they administer, and that the underlying API is already scoped this way.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core resource (employee roster) before detailing the scoping behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and the parenthetical explanation clarifies the 'all visible rows' case efficiently.

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 appropriately mentions row contents (position, start date) and fully explains scoping behavior. Pagination is covered by the input schema, and the read-only safety is covered by annotations. A minor gap is not distinguishing from sibling company_roster, but the tool is otherwise complete for practical invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for company_id by explaining the difference between omitting it and providing it, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Only rows for this company.' It does not add page/page_size detail, but the schema already documents those adequately.

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 states the tool returns a company's employee roster with position and start date, and explains the scoping behavior with and without company_id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool company_roster, so cross-tool distinction is left to inference.

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 provides clear context for when to omit or provide company_id, explaining what the caller will see in each case. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the scoping guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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