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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It signals a read operation via 'GET', notes the required company scope, and mentions flat query fields, but omits pagination, authentication needs, or other behavioral details.

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 description is three short sentences and is front-loaded with the endpoint and core constraint. Every clause contributes useful information without filler.

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 list endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the required company and points to filter discovery. It remains minimal, however, and does not fully describe query behavior or list semantics.

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 identifies the required company_name and mentions the query parameter as 'flat query fields' with filters delegated to describe_nextesy_operation, which adds some meaning but leaves query semantics incomplete.

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 states the HTTP verb (GET) and the resource path (payroll/company/working-time-models), making clear this retrieves working time models. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling payroll-list tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 notes 'Explicit company required' and points to describe_nextesy_operation for filters, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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