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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no result size, pagination, ordering, or what 'active' means operationally — and the active/inactive filter is already documented in the schema.

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, action first and usage second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A simple, non-destructive read with rich annotations and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, and no output schema to explain. The only real gap is that a list tool of unspecified cardinality gives no hint about pagination or result limits, but nothing critical is missing for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (company, include_inactive) fully documented in-schema including the default and the list_companies pointer. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 (list employees) plus a scope qualifier (active) and the owning entity (company). It does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling deel_get_people, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which people-listing tool to pick.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('employees, staff, team members, or headcount') that map user intent to the tool, which is genuinely useful. It gives no exclusions or alternatives, notably it never says how it differs from deel_get_people, so no routing guidance exists for overlap cases.

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