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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a GET (read-only) and that company must be passed explicitly, but says nothing about pagination, default ordering, or result size limits — the traits an agent needs before issuing a collection read.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint, and nothing wasted — but the telegraphic style ('Fixed JSON GET', 'Flat query fields') replaces explanation with jargon and reads as notes to the author rather than guidance to a caller.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, a tool with a free-form `query` object and zero schema coverage needs far more than a redirect to another tool; the description never explains what the query object accepts or how results are bounded.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds two useful facts — company_name must be supplied explicitly, and query takes flat fields discovered via describe_nextesy_operation — but it never names any of those query fields, leaving the free-form object opaque.

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 endpoint line and tool name imply 'list payroll periods', but the description itself never states the verb+resource plainly. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling payroll list tools (list_payroll_calculations, list_payroll_payments, list_payroll_wage_types), leaving the agent to infer scope from the URL.

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?

'Explicit company required' is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule. The pointer to describe_nextesy_operation is the only routing signal, and it directs to filter discovery rather than explaining when to call this tool instead of other payroll listing tools.

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