hcm_search_payroll_relationships

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation; the description merely repeats that fact. It adds no additional behavioral detail such as pagination behavior, result shape, or data scoping, so it contributes little 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 one short sentence and is easy to parse, with the main action and resource front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, and 'read-only' is redundant with the annotation, so it earns only a moderate score.

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 search tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. The agent is left to infer what q searches, how pagination works, and what a payroll relationship contains. It is minimally viable but incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description gives no explanation of q, limit, or offset. q is only inferable as a query string from the tool name, and limit/offset semantics are not specified. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('payroll relationships'), so an agent knows what operation is offered. It is clear at a basic level, but it does not explicitly explain the difference from sibling hcm_get_payroll_relationship or the meaning of a payroll relationship.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this search tool over hcm_get_payroll_relationship or other search tools. The 'read-only' qualifier only notes safety, not selection conditions. This is effectively a no-guidance case.

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