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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail that no filter is applied (both active and inactive employees are returned) and cites the underlying endpoint. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size, so it goes modestly beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the scope of the listing is front-loaded before the follow-on guidance about the returned identifiers.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden of describing returns; it names the two most consequential fields and the active/inactive scope. It omits other likely returned fields and any result-volume expectations, but is adequate for a zero-parameter list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The field names mentioned (id, employee_number) describe returned data rather than inputs, which is helpful context but not a parameter semantics contribution.

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 ('List all employees') and scopes it precisely: technicians and office staff, active and inactive. The employee resource is clearly distinct from the sibling list tools (customers, jobs, items, notes), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 description explains downstream usage ('use their id for job/task assignment and time entries, employee_number to filter jobs') but never states when to call this tool versus an alternative, nor any preconditions or exclusions. Usage is implied by context rather than declared.

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