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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotation: the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v0/staff) and the { meta, response } envelope, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits auth/rate-limit/pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the endpoint and return shape come after the identity statement. The param-name list is mildly redundant against the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 output schema, disclosing the { meta, response } return envelope is the key piece an agent needs, and it is present. Parameters are fully self-documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though filtering/search interaction guidance would round it out.

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%, so each of the five parameters already carries its own meaning and defaults. The description only repeats the parameter names without adding syntax or interaction detail, 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 clear verb+resource and disambiguates 'staff' as 'Accelo users in your deployment', which separates it from sibling list_contacts/list_companies. It never explicitly routes the agent between list_staff and get_staff, 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 says what the tool supports but never says when to use it versus list_* vs get_staff siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. 'Supports _page/_limit/...' is parameter inventory, not usage guidance.

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