List staff

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: hours are derived from Shifts with time off included, and the window is Monday–Sunday of a single week. It does not, however, say whether inactive/hidden staff are returned or how large the response can get.

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?

The key content is front-loaded in the first sentence and the field inventory follows efficiently in one sentence. There is mild redundancy between the opening noun-phrase fragment and the 'Reads the staff...' sentence, costing it a point but not readability.

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 properly carries the return-value burden by enumerating fields and the week shape, and it hints at the staff_id handoff. It stops short of stating filtering of inactive staff or response size, which for a list tool would be the last missing piece.

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% and the single parameter is already well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the returned window is Monday-to-Sunday, complementing the schema's 'any day of the week' input semantics.

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 (reads) and resource (staff of the business) and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, position, email, phone, access level, visibility, services performed, and per-day hours. The inclusion of services-per-staff and weekly shifts distinguishes it from siblings like list_services and list_clients without ambiguity.

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 by 'Reads the staff of the business' — there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The closing note 'Use staff_id in other tools' is helpful downstream routing but is not selection guidance for this tool itself.

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