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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's disclosure burden is lighter. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /employees) and the kind of data returned, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result set size, or sorting, which matter for an 11-parameter list endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence stating scope and attribute coverage, with the endpoint appended compactly. No filler, though the bare 'GET /employees' line is marginally redundant for an agent.

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 an 11-param search endpoint with no output schema, the description is adequate on identity but silent on the filtering dimensions that define search (geo, status, sorting) and on result pagination. Not misleading, but an agent gets most of its operational detail from the schema alone.

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 64%, with page, email, subject, per_page, direction, and name filters documented in-schema. The description loosely references 'subjects, status and wage settings' but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, and the undocumented zip/city/state params are left unaddressed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List or search employees') and clarifies the domain scope ('teachers/tutors and administrative staff'), plus the attribute space involved ('subjects, status and wage settings'). It clearly reads as the collection counterpart to the singular get_employee sibling, but it never names an alternative tool to distinguish itself.

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?

'List or search' implies when the tool applies, and the mention of subjects/status hints at filter dimensions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to related tools like get_employee or get_employee_earnings.

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