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

readOnlyHint already signals a safe read, and the description adds real value beyond it by disclosing that both active and inactive employees are returned and by naming the raw endpoint (GET /{account}/employees.xml). It stops short of describing pagination or result-size behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The scope of the listing is front-loaded, followed by field-usage guidance, then the endpoint.

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 carries the burden of hinting at the return shape, and it does so by naming the two key fields and the active/inactive range. Missing only pagination/ordering behavior, a minor gap for a no-arg 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 is 4. The field names mentioned (`id`, `employee_number`) are output fields rather than inputs, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 immediately scopes it ('technicians and office staff, active and inactive'), so an agent knows exactly what population is returned. No employee-listing sibling exists to confuse it with, and the underlying endpoint is named.

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?

Explains the downstream purpose clearly: use `id` for job/task assignment and time entries, `employee_number` to filter jobs. That tells the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite step, though it never states an explicit when-not or names an alternative.

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