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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding context annotations cannot: it discloses that PIN settings and secrets are omitted (a data-scoping guarantee), that staff:read is required (auth scope), and that the API is preview and 'may change without a version bump' (stability caveat). It stops short of describing pagination or result volume.

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 'Preview API' caveat and the returned fields. Slightly telegraphic ('optional names') but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious parts (omitted secrets, auth scope, preview instability). It still leaves gaps around pagination, result ordering, and the meaning of the location scoping that an agent needs to use the tool confidently.

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 0% for the single required locationId, and the description says nothing about it. It never explains that staff are scoped to a location or what the loc_ prefixed identifier refers to, leaving the agent to infer the scoping model from the schema pattern alone.

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 names the resource and enumerates what is returned (staff IDs, names, linked resource IDs), which goes beyond restating the title 'List staff'. It is not fully distinguished from siblings like cliento_list_resources, which in many systems overlap with staff, so an agent could hesitate between the two.

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?

'Requires staff:read' communicates a prerequisite, implying this is the read path for staff data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cliento_list_resources or cliento_get_resource, and no exclusions or pagination guidance.

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