Get a Sri Lanka payslip checklist

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns checklist fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the checklist is static or based on input. Given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

With zero parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema, the description is adequate. It communicates the tool's scope (Sri Lankan payslip) and function (return checklist items). No additional context is needed.

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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed since the tool requires no input.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'fields and checks needed to prepare or review a Sri Lankan employee payslip.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_sri_lanka_payslip (calculation) and get_sri_lanka_payroll_reference (reference).

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 states the tool returns checklist items 'needed to prepare or review' a payslip, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the intended use case is evident.

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