gerent365_list_payroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state non-destructive behavior, authentication requirements, or return format details, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that could have side effects (though it likely doesn't).

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 two short sentences: the first states the main purpose with a specific verb and resource, and the second explains the optional filter. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 simple list operation with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't specify the response structure, whether results are paginated, or any preconditions like authentication, and with no annotations to fill the gap, it falls short of being fully contextual.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'status' parameter with a description and enum values. The description repeats the filtering capability without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already says, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage without additional semantic contribution.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Lista') and the resource ('periodos de nómina'), making it obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling payroll tools like create_payroll_period, calculate_payroll, approve_payroll, and pay_payroll, which perform different actions.

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 a listing/querying use case with an optional status filter, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other payroll period tools.

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