Get staff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: contact details are stripped and names reduced to initials by the PII mask. This tells the agent the returned data is transformed, which is important context it could not get from annotations. It does not, however, disclose pagination behavior despite the maxPages parameter.

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 tight sentences with the endpoint and scope front-loaded, followed by the masking note. No filler, though the raw endpoint prefix is slightly redundant with the title.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, purpose plus the PII transformation is largely sufficient. Without an output schema the description could say a bit more about return shape and pagination, but the key behavioral caveat is covered.

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 50% (siteId documented, maxPages not), which is borderline. The phrase 'at a site' reinforces the role of siteId but adds no format or syntax detail, and maxPages is left undocumented in both schema and description. A 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 gives a specific resource ('staff at a site') and the underlying endpoint GET /staff/staff, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling client/sales/service tools. The verb is only implicit (GET) and the leading endpoint string is somewhat redundant, but the scope is clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the generic mbo_api_get sibling. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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