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 the shape of the returned record (id, name, kind) and the GROUP/DEPARTMENT distinction, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or scoping that the schema's pageInfo note does not already handle.

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, front-loaded with the action and result shape, with the practical follow-up use immediately after. "GraphQL query teams." is largely redundant with the name and is the one sentence that does not fully earn its place.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with annotated safety hints and pagination documented in the schema, the description supplies what is missing: the returned fields and the kind enumeration. Only the return envelope (page shape) is left implicit, which is minor.

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% with defaults and enum constraints documented, including the pageInfo.next hint for offset. The description contributes nothing about limit/offset/sort parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; only `sort_by` lacks a schema description and could have used a line 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 and resource ("List teams and departments") and even enumerates the returned fields plus the two possible `kind` values, which no sibling list tool claims. It is clearly distinct from kiwihr_list_locations, kiwihr_list_positions and kiwihr_list_users, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 the downstream purpose, which implies when to reach for this tool (you need team/department ids for employee filtering). However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not conditions, so selection guidance is only implied.

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