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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, so the description only needs to add beyond that — and it does, by clarifying that these are master-data template definitions rather than issued payroll records. It doesn't cover pagination behaviour or volume characteristics in the prose, but the schema carries those.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the identification plus the return shape, the second handles disambiguation from the sibling. No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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 usefully sketches what a template contains (line sets and their fields), which is enough for an agent to know what it will receive. Pagination semantics live in the schema, so the only minor gap is not describing ordering or volume of templates returned.

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 both limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema, including default, next_cursor round-tripping and no-silent-truncation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('List the business's payslip templates') and then enumerates the internal structure returned (named line sets of earnings/deductions/contributions, each with kind, rate, quantity, amount, formula). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling list_payslips, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

It states the domain clearly ('Templates are master data') and routes the agent to list_payslips for issued payslips, which is real when-to-use guidance tied to a named alternative. It stops short of stating exclusions for this tool itself (e.g. that it is business-wide and unfiltered), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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