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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: sensitive payroll, bank, tax and insurance data are never returned, and the underlying call is a GraphQL users query. It does not discuss pagination behavior, though the schema's offset/limit descriptions and pageInfo.next note already cover that.

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 tight sentences: identity and return fields first, filters second, data-exclusion caveat last. No filler and each clause carries information.

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 13-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers both selection criteria and the returned field set plus a key data-scope limitation. Only pagination/sorting behavior is left unmentioned, and that is documented in the schema itself.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already explained, including cross-references like team_id (from kiwihr_list_teams). The description only restates the filterable fields, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (list/search) and resource (employees / 'users') and enumerates the returned fields and filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from kiwihr_get_user, so sibling routing relies on inference from 'list'.

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?

Says to filter by active state, team, location, position, e-mail or name, which implies the usage pattern, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as kiwihr_get_user for a single record. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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