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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the scope (the business's payslips) and the exact result content, which serves as a lightweight return-format disclosure in the absence of an output schema. It does not cover ordering or any auth/rate-limit traits, keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero waste. The resource and returned fields are front-loaded, and the routing guidance is compressed into a single trailing clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields in the description is exactly the right compensation, and the schema fully carries pagination. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 there, including default, pagination fields and the next_cursor round-trip. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the business's payslips), then enumerates the fields returned (employee, pay run, period, pay date, draft flag, gross, deductions, net, earning/deduction/contribution lines). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_payslip and list_payruns 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?

Directly routes the agent to alternatives with the selecting condition: 'For one payslip use get_payslip; for the run headers use list_payruns.' This is explicit when/when-not guidance rather than inference.

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