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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the default filtering of inactive staff and the auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with access to this app).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its downstream consumers, with the auth note last. Minor redundancy between the first two sentences, which both restate that IDs are returned, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: auth requirements, the inactive-staff default, and how the result is consumed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single boolean parameter is fully documented with its default. The description restates the same default ('Inactive staff are left out unless you ask for them') in prose, which aids interpretation but adds no detail the schema lacks. 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 ('Active cleaners and teams with their IDs') and scopes it to the caller's account. It goes further by naming the two sibling tools (assign_cleaners, create_appointment) that consume the returned IDs, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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?

Clear context: call this to obtain the cleaner/team IDs that assign_cleaners and create_appointment require, and the default excludes inactive staff. It gives no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative listing tool, but for a single-resource listing tool with no competitor sibling, the guidance is sufficient.

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