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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully narrows the scope to 'active' employees (implying inactive ones are excluded), but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or how multi-location filtering interacts with company-scoped accounts.

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: what it returns, why to call it, and the underlying endpoint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the main gap is the absence of an output schema – the description partly compensates by naming the returned fields. Pagination/response-shape behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 page, page_size, sort_by, sort_direction and location_ids all documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what sort_by accepts) beyond that.

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 (list) and resource (employees) with scope ('active'), and enumerates the returned concepts (role, contact details, permissions). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list tools (customers, jobs, estimates, invoices, tags).

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?

'Use their ids to assign or dispatch jobs' gives a downstream purpose, which helps an agent see why it would call this. But it does not state when to prefer this over sibling list tools or any prerequisites, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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