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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the access restriction ('Owner or office'), defines the readiness condition ('ready is true when nothing is waiting'), and scopes out pay ('Hours only, no pay'). It stops short of stating mutate/read safety or rate limits explicitly, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 core purpose, then adds tight supporting clauses on contents, readiness, permissions, and scope. Dense but purposeful; no redundant sentences.

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-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description focuses on intent, contents, permission, and readiness semantics. The main gap is the undocumented offset behavior, which the schema does cover, so completeness is strong for a 5-param read tool.

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 60%, and the description adds the conceptual framing of 'one pay period (or a custom from and to)' that clarifies the date/from/to relationship. However, it does not explain offset (period steering) or shop_id at all, leaving part of the schema's meaning to the schema itself.

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 (payroll-ready hours) and enumerates the output dimensions: approved minutes per person by category/day, paid minutes excluding break, and pending/running items. The scope is clear and the 'Hours only, no pay' clause disambiguates from broader payroll tools, though it doesn't name the sibling alternatives (payroll_exportCsv, payroll_getPeriod) explicitly.

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?

'Owner or office' gives an implied permission context and 'one pay period (or a custom from and to)' signals the two usage modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance against payroll_exportCsv or payroll_getPeriod. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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