gerent365_calculate_payroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is calculated and the state restriction, but it fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it mutates data or changes the status), what happens if called on an invalid state, or whether it is idempotent. The action 'calcula' implies a possible mutation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that each add essential information: the action and scope, and the applicability condition. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description lacks essential contextual details. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the call returns or how it affects the period state. The tool likely mutates data (e.g., transitioning from DRAFT to CALCULATED), but this is not disclosed, making the description incomplete for a tool that performs a calculation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'ID del periodo de nómina.' The tool description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The state restriction is usage guidance rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calcula' (calculates) and identifies the resource 'nómina de un periodo' (payroll of a period), with explicit details on what is computed (hours worked, tips, Puerto Rico taxes). It also includes a relevant state constraint (DRAFT or CALCULATED), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_payroll or pay_payroll.

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 clearly states when to use the tool via the phrase 'Solo aplica a periodos en estado DRAFT o CALCULATED' (only applies to periods in DRAFT or CALCULATED state), giving an explicit exclusion of other states. However, it does not name any alternative tools for states outside these statuses, so it falls short of a 5.

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