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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds useful context beyond that: it discloses the returned fields (contact details, subjects, wage type, bio, permissions) and the underlying endpoint, which helps the agent anticipate the payload.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, plus the endpoint. Every element earns its place with no padding.

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 helpfully enumerates the key fields returned, covering most of what an agent needs to decide on and use the tool. A note on behavior for missing/invalid ids would round it out.

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% for the single employee_id parameter, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no additional format or semantic detail, matching the baseline 3 for well-documented schemas.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve one employee') and clarifies the entity scope as 'teacher or staff'. This implicitly distinguishes it from list_employees, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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 'one employee' and the GET /employees/{id} endpoint, signaling a single-record lookup by id. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against get_employee_earnings or list_employees.

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