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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the organizational scoping ('in the user's Deel organization'), but says nothing about the default page size of 20, pagination behavior, or how results are ordered — all relevant for a list operation.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy; the resource definition is front-loaded and the usage trigger follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 simple read-only, two-parameter list tool with no output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is not clarifying its relationship to the sibling 'list_employees' tool.

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%: 'limit' (default 20) and 'company' (which company to read, pointing to list_companies and describing the default behavior) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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: 'List people (contractors and employees) in the user's Deel organization', with a useful parenthetical clarifying what 'people' covers. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_employees', which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

'Use when the user asks about their Deel team, workforce, or contractor list' gives clear triggering context, so the agent knows when this tool is relevant. It gives no exclusions and, notably, no routing away from 'list_employees', so the agent is left to guess between the two similar list tools.

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