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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds the useful trust signal that results reconcile with the payroll Excel in the panel, implying an authoritative, consistent source. It says nothing about aggregation granularity of the response, ordering, or how employees with zero records appear.

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 metric list is front-loaded and each clause earns its place by naming a distinct returned figure. The trailing English sentence duplicates the Spanish content for a bilingual audience but adds no new information, and the long enumeration in a single sentence is dense though navigable.

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 must and does enumerate the returned metrics, which is exactly the information an agent needs to answer payroll and absence questions. Since all five parameters are optional with documented defaults, nothing critical about invocation is missing, though aggregation or per-employee row shape remains unstated.

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%, with defaults and formats already documented for desde, hasta, sitio, empresa and empleado. The description only echoes the range concept by naming typical periods (quincena, semana, mes) and per-person scoping, which reinforces but does not extend the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 resource and scope: per-person attendance/payroll metrics over a date range, enumerating exactly which metrics (days with records, lates and their minutes, absences, missing check-outs, missing check-ins, hours worked). It also anchors the output as 'the same numbers as the payroll Excel in the panel'. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides three concrete example user phrasings ('dame las horas de la quincena', '¿cuántas faltas tuvo cada quien en octubre?', '¿quién tiene días sin salida?') that clearly indicate the request shapes this tool serves. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent away from near-neighbors such as asistencia_del_dia, historial_de_empleado or quien_no_ha_llegado.

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