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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are compact by default, the `fields` parameter expands them, and sensitive data (bank accounts, insurance numbers, residence cards, salary, ID images) is never returned regardless of request. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the return-shape and sensitivity notes. The middle filter enumeration is long and duplicates the schema, but nothing is padded or redundant at the sentence level.

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 16-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, filterable dimensions, default output shape, expansion via `fields`, and the security boundary. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and result volume, both partially covered by the schema's page/per_page fields.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters including the fields enum, defaults, and the sensitive-data exclusion. The description's filter list and 'use `fields` for more' largely restate those fields rather than adding syntax or semantics; 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?

States a concrete verb (List) and resource (employees 従業員) scoped to the SmartHR tenant, and enumerates the filter axes (free-text, status, emp_code, type, department, position, date ranges). It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent smarthr_list_users or smarthr_get_employee, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: you call it when you want to enumerate employees, and the single explicit routing hint is the internal one 'use `fields` for more'. There is no statement about when to prefer smarthr_get_employee for a single record or how this differs from smarthr_list_users.

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