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

readOnlyHint already establishes safety, and the description adds real value beyond annotations by declaring the returned field set and, notably, that pension numbers, income and documents are excluded — useful privacy/scope context for a sensitive HR domain. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then the exclusion clause. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 a fully documented schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the remaining gap — what is and isn't in the response — which matters since there is no output schema. Only pagination/result-shape specifics are left implicit via the schema.

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%, with page/per_page/employee_id all documented in the schema itself (including the 'from smarthr_list_employees' hint). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb (List) and resource (dependents) with explicit scope: 'registered for one employee', plus the exact fields returned. It doesn't explicitly name the closest sibling (smarthr_list_dependent_relations, which lists relation types rather than a person's dependents), so an agent must infer that distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by 'registered for one employee' and the employee_id requirement, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives like smarthr_list_dependent_relations or smarthr_create_dependent. The exclusions listed concern returned fields, not tool selection.

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