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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the returned field set, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or empty-result semantics beyond what the schema already declares for start/max.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability and filter axes. The trailing internal API endpoint note (POST /api/v1/resource/Employee/QUERY) is implementation detail that does not help an agent select or call the tool, slightly diluting an otherwise tight description.

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, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (Id, DisplayName, Company, Active, StartDate, Role). Combined with readOnly annotations and a fully documented parameter schema, an agent has what it needs, though ordering and total-count behavior remain unstated.

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 every parameter including pagination semantics is already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the filter axes (name, location, active status) without adding format or edge-case detail, 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 ('Search employees') plus the filter dimensions, and the plural framing distinguishes it from the single-record deputy_get_employee. It never explicitly names the sibling it is not, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 filter dimensions (name, location, active status) imply when a caller would reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to deputy_get_employee for a single record. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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