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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is already covered. Beyond that, the description adds the stateful prerequisite (unlock_shareflo must run first), which is exactly the kind of sequencing context annotations cannot express. It does not describe return shape or pagination.

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, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 a zero-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the required setup step. It would be slightly stronger with a note about ordering/pagination or volume, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax for the description to add and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing misleading is stated about inputs.

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 (all stakeholders) and even enumerates examples of stakeholder types, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling get_representatives, which is the only gap.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use: unlock_shareflo must have been called first, naming the sibling tool by name. It does not state when-not to use it or which sibling to pick instead of get_representatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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