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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by flagging 'Personal data' and exposing the underlying OData GET endpoint, though it does not discuss permissions, response size, or rate limits.

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?

The description is extremely compact and front-loaded: purpose, data sensitivity note, and endpoint in three short fragments. Every element contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description supplies enough context to select and call the tool safely. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling employee-list and employee-get tools; return-value details are less critical for a list endpoint with obvious semantics.

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 the seven parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only the endpoint path mentioning {company}, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for filter, select, paging, or count parameters.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List all employees of a company') and adds the important scope qualifier 'including terminated ones.' It is clear enough to distinguish this from a single-employee lookup, but it does not explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling payspace_list_employees.

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?

The phrase 'including terminated ones' implies when this tool is preferable to a standard employee list, but the description never states when to use it versus payspace_list_employees or payspace_get_employee. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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