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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates which sensitive fields ARE returned (DOB, gender, marital status, personal email/phone, home address, notes) and explicitly lists fields that are never returned (National Insurance numbers, payroll id, starter declaration, student-loan flags). This is exactly the disclosure an agent needs before handling personal data.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then field disclosure. The field enumeration is long but each clause carries real information; no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back — and it does in detail, including the inclusion/exclusion boundary for sensitive data. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing material an agent needs 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines the format (team_member_XXX) and points to the listing tool. The description adds no new syntax or constraint beyond restating 'by id', so 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 ('One team member by id with the full profile') plus the underlying endpoint GET /team_members/{id}. It is clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings by the 'by id' scoping, though it never names charliehr_list_team_members as the alternative for browsing/searching.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a single member when you already have the id (the schema even points to charliehr_list_team_members for obtaining it). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement about what to do if the id is unknown.

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