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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: payroll and bank sections appear by name only and their values are never returned by any tool — a data-availability constraint an agent would otherwise waste calls discovering.

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 with the core purpose and the returned fields front-loaded, and no filler. The trailing 'GraphQL query customFields' is implementation metadata of marginal use to an agent selecting the tool, but it is only three words.

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 return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned plus the payroll/bank exclusion. Pagination and sorting are fully covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents limit, offset (including pageInfo.next), and sort_direction; only sort_by's enum lacks a description. The description adds nothing about sorting or pagination, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work here.

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 plus resource ('List the company's custom employee profile fields') and enumerates the returned attributes, which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish it from list_users, list_positions, or list_teams without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the field list, and there is no direct sibling alternative for custom fields, so no explicit when-to-use routing is strictly needed. However, the description never says when an agent should reach for this versus list_users when it needs profile metadata, nor does it state prerequisites such as admin scope.

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