Overtime Report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, consistent with a report generation tool. The description adds behavioral context: it aggregates hours and estimates cost in EUR, and implies it is non-destructive. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short sentences in English and one in Spanish. Every sentence adds information: purpose, aggregation details, use cases, and format examples. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not needed in description), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameter format examples, and use cases. It is complete for a report generation tool with good annotations.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete format examples for the period parameter ('YYYY-MM', 'YYYY-QN', 'YYYY') and bilingual labels, which helps the agent understand expected input 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates an overtime report, aggregates regular vs overtime hours per employee and total cost in EUR. It specifies the resource (overtime report) and action (generate), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_time_entries or get_time_summary by focusing on overtime aggregation and cost.

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 explicitly states it is 'Useful for payroll prep and labor-law audits,' providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the use cases are well-defined.

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