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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it guarantees PINs and passwords are never returned, a security-relevant behavioral fact not derivable from structured fields. It also discloses the underlying endpoint. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, everything front-loaded: scope first, safety guarantee second, endpoint last. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

A read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, an explicit statement of returned fields, and a guarantee about suppressed sensitive data — the main things an agent needs. Pagination semantics live entirely in the next_query schema entry rather than the description, a minor gap but not a functional one.

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% and all four parameters (query, active, branch, next_query) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add filter semantics or clarify how 'branch' interacts with the returned 'branch' field, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (staff members/cashiers), and it names the fields returned (name, number, branch), which no sibling list_* tool does. The resource is distinct from siblings like tillhub_list_branches or tillhub_list_registers, so an agent can disambiguate without opening the schema. No explicit sibling routing, so not a 5.

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 the resource name — an agent asking 'who works here' will select it — but there is no statement of when to prefer it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that pagination continues via next_query. It is adequate rather than instructive.

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