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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is a single signed download_url and that it's not composite merge or Gmail, but it doesn't state whether the artifact is persisted, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects beyond generating a URL.

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 compact sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every phrase earns its place, though the 'Platform key Job — no account_link_id' is cryptic and may confuse agents. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the output as a single signed download_url and the workbook layout (one sheet per employee). It doesn't cover error conditions or prerequisites, but given the moderate complexity and good schema coverage, it's sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by indicating that the employees array maps one sheet per employee, which is not explicit in the schema. It also names the key input parameters (attribution_ym, payment_date, employees) and notes the no account_link_id context, adding value beyond the schema.

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 (Build), resource (payroll payslip workbook xlsx), and scope (one sheet per employee). Explicitly excludes composite merge and Gmail, distinguishing it from other artifact types. The tool name and title also align.

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?

The description implies when to use (generate a payslip xlsx) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like payroll_artifact__register_xlsx. The 'not composite merge; not Gmail' clarifies the output type, but it's more about the result than tool selection.

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