hcm_get_payroll_relationship

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

The only behavioral trait mentioned, 'read-only', duplicates the existing readOnlyHint annotation and adds no new context. No information is provided about return behavior, missing IDs, errors, permissions, or response shape, so the description carries little weight beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentence with no filler; 'read-only' is somewhat redundant with the annotation but does not harm clarity. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple getter.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description covers the core facts an agent needs: the operation, target resource, lookup key, and read-only nature. It could mention the response shape or explicitly compare with the search variant, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 single parameter, payrollRelationshipId, is self-descriptive, and the phrase 'by id' confirms it is the lookup key. However, the description does not add substantive guidance beyond the schema property name—no format, source, or example—and with 0% schema description coverage it only minimally compensates.

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 states a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'payroll relationship', with the qualifier 'by id' that clearly differentiates from the sibling hcm_search_payroll_relationships: this tool fetches a single entity by identifier rather than searching. The read-only note also signals intent.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: 'by id' indicates the tool is appropriate when a payrollRelationshipId is already known, but the description does not call out alternatives or state when to prefer hcm_search_payroll_relationships. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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