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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the default scoping when the parameter is omitted and the mandatory unlock_shareflo prerequisite. It does not describe return structure or pagination, but the added operational context is substantive.

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, each front-loaded and earning its place: what is returned, the omitted-parameter default, and the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 carries the return-value burden and does state the returned content (representatives and permission levels). Combined with the default-scoping note, prerequisite, and readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only finer return-format detail is absent, which is minor for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the 'stakeholder' filter is already documented; baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of omitting the parameter (falls back to company-level cap table administrators), which is not captured anywhere in the schema.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('representatives (authorised users) and their permission levels'), making the output content clear. It is distinguishable from the get_* siblings by resource, but does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition ('If no stakeholder is specified, returns company-level cap table administrators') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first'). It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the context for calling it is explicit.

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