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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the company is resolved from the HMAC credentials rather than a parameter, and it names the concrete GET endpoint. It adds nothing about pagination defaults, but the schema covers 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its purpose, then the credential scoping and endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the 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?

For a simple read-only list with no output schema, the description plus rich annotations and a fully documented 2-parameter schema give an agent everything needed to call it correctly. The only mild gap is that the shape of returned items (id/name fields) is only hinted at via 'with ids'.

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%: page and limit are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and next_page usage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the company's employment statuses'), gives concrete examples of the values (permanent, contract), and explains the downstream use ('ids for employee filters'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like talenta_list_job_levels, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can route here without confusion.

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?

'with ids for employee filters' implies when to reach for this tool (to obtain ids before filtering employees), and naming the endpoint clarifies the scope. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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