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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the response is filtered to the supervisor's visibility of the employee, which tells the agent that field presence and values can differ by caller privileges. It omits behavior for an unknown id, but the supervisor-scoping disclosure is real added value.

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 sentences, zero filler: the capability statement comes first and the raw endpoint mapping follows as a compact parenthetical. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by listing the categories of data returned, so an agent knows what it gets without a response schema. Missing only edge-case behavior (nonexistent id, permission-denied response), which is a minor gap for a read tool whose annotations already signal safety.

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 a single integer employee_id, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the description contributes nothing about the id (format, source, whether it must be a Deputy-internal id). Nothing here exceeds what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (one employee's details) with scope qualifier 'as a supervisor sees them,' and an enumeration of the returned facets (contact, locations, role, employment). The word 'one' cleanly separates it from the sibling deputy_list_employees and from deputy_get_employee_unavailability.

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 by 'one employee' versus the sibling list tool, and the supervisor-view framing hints at when this variant applies. However, no alternative is named explicitly and no precondition (e.g. needing a known employee_id) is stated, so the agent must infer the selection logic.

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