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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields (name, email, role, role abilities, company id) and gives the underlying endpoint (GET /c/{company_id}/admin), which helps the agent reason about scope and cost.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched and what it returns, followed by the practical reason to call it. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the name or title.

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 burden of describing return values and does so by listing the fields returned. For a zero-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description's mention of company_id is contextual (it appears in the endpoint path) rather than a required input, so no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 (fetch) plus a precisely scoped resource: the Recruitee user the API token belongs to, enumerated by returned fields (name, email, role, role abilities, company id). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as recruitee_list_team_members, since it returns the token's own identity rather than a team roster.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context — 'a cheap way to confirm the token and company id are right' — which tells the agent this is a cheap verification call rather than a data-gathering step. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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