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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-value context beyond the annotations: payroll identifiers are excluded and leave notes are omitted, which tells an agent what it will not find in the response.

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 core action and followed by the data-omission caveat. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape. It discloses exclusions but only vaguely characterizes what a 'staff response' contains, leaving the returned fields under-specified for a get tool without an output schema.

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 the single id parameter is fully documented ('Opaque Workfeed ID from a preceding read; not a UUID'). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden — baseline 3.

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 ('Read one selected employee') and the 'one selected' qualifier implicitly distinguishes single-record retrieval from the sibling list_employees. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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 only implied through 'one selected employee' — an agent can infer this is for fetching a single record versus listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of list_employees as the alternative, and no prerequisite guidance.

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