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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context—and it does: it lists the exact fields returned, including PosKey's cross-reference to the attendance tool, which is real behavioral information. It does not address pagination behavior or result volume, though 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 sentences, zero waste, with the returned-field inventory front-loaded and the sibling redirect trailing it. Every clause earns its place.

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 compensates well by enumerating returned fields and clarifying the meaning of PosKey. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%: both limit and offset are fully documented in the schema, including the next_offset continuation pattern, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own—baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 employees of the company) and specifies the scope of the basic data set it returns. It also clearly distinguishes itself from tamigo_list_employee_details, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 sentence 'For contract, wage and absence-balance details use tamigo_list_employee_details' explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It covers the main routing decision but gives no guidance on when this basic list is preferable for bulk or narrow use cases beyond 'basic'.

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