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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: it discloses that the call performs no side effects, that it returns a step-by-step procedure rather than data, and that there is no official PeopleHR MCP server. It stops short of describing the exact return shape or whether repeated calls vary, but it meaningfully exceeds what the annotations convey.

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?

The middle sentence carries the essential information (returns steps, performs nothing, then use browser tools), but the opening clause about ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent is filler and the trailing note about the Access PeopleHR Integration API v4.0 and MCP-server check is tangential to invoking the tool. Front-loading the misleading 'List employees' before the clarification forces the agent to read past a false first impression.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does: a step-by-step guide with screens, buttons, and fields. It also names the tool handoff needed to complete the task. It is nearly complete, missing only session/prerequisite details and any statement of what the guide looks like in practice.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema has additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description wrongly suggests parameterization.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List employees in the user's own PeopleHR account') and then immediately qualifies what it actually returns: step-by-step UI instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than employee data. That self-correction is valuable, though the opening 'List employees ... from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' framing reads as marketing and momentarily implies live data retrieval. It does not differentiate this PeopleHR tool from sibling PeopleHR tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives workflow guidance: this tool only returns instructions and 'opens nothing by itself', and the actual action is then performed 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's PeopleHR Cloud Browser'. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as cotlet_app_guide or the other peoplehr_* tools, and gives no prerequisites (e.g., a signed-in Cloud Browser session) or exclusions.

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