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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly repeats 'Read-only.' It does add the underlying call (POST /api/v1/resource/{Object}/QUERY), which usefully reconciles a write-looking HTTP verb with read-only semantics. However, it says nothing about rate limits, result envelope, or pagination behavior, so it adds only a little beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and object examples, then the search syntax, then a routing hint. Dense but readable; the inline operator enumeration and the raw endpoint string are the only slightly expendable material, and the endpoint does carry some informational value.

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 6-param, deeply nested, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what can be queried, how clauses are shaped, and how to discover unknown fields. The remaining gap is the response shape and pagination contract (next_start), which is only hinted at inside the schema rather than explained.

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 the schema already documents max/start/sort/join/object/search, including the clause structure and operator enum. The description's clause-map example and operator list largely restate what the schema provides, so it does not meaningfully extend param semantics. 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run a Resource API search on any business object') and enumerates the object families covered (leave types, pay rules, shift templates, pay lines, availability, sales data). The 'any business object' scope implicitly carves it out from the narrow sibling list_* tools, so an agent can place it without opening the 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?

Gives clear workflow context by routing field/join discovery to deputy_describe_resource, which is the natural prerequisite for building a valid query. It stops short of naming when to prefer this generic query over the specific deputy_list_employees / deputy_list_shifts siblings, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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