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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns exactly the public page render, includes no join requests or ex-employees, and explicitly states 'no write verbs'. It clarifies both what is and is not included, and does not contradict annotations.

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 focused paragraphs: the first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second gives targeted sibling guidance and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return semantic (public employees+moderators), boundaries (no ex-employees, no requests), and the correct usage context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 the only parameter (company_id) is documented with 'Numeric id of the company.' The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('The company page's public roster in one call') and precisely defines scope: employees and moderators as rendered to any visitor. This differentiates it from sibling tools like company_employees and company_ex_employees without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 directs the agent to use this instead of company_employees/company_admins when reading someone else's roster, and explains why: those are self-or-admin scoped, so outsiders get empty lists and cannot distinguish 'nobody works here' from 'you may not see who does'. This exclusion criterion is actionable and clear.

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