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 only "GraphQL query locations," which is implementation trivia rather than behavioral context; no mention of result volume, page limits, or data freshness beyond what the schema's pagination params imply.

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 with no filler. The trailing "GraphQL query locations" earns little, but the overall definition is tight and scannable.

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 usefully names the returned fields (id, name) and the consumer of those ids. Pagination is handled by the schema's limit/offset/pageInfo wording, so an agent has enough to call this correctly, though it says nothing about total result volume.

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 documents limit, offset and sort_direction, with enums constraining both sort parameters. The description only hints at output fields, adding nothing about sorting or paging semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 office locations") and even names the returned fields (id, name). It is unambiguous against the many other kiwihr list_* siblings by virtue of the 'locations' resource, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from list_teams or list_positions.

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 the ids to filter employees" gives concrete downstream context that tells an agent why to call this tool. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage intent is clear.

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