hcm_search_payslips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the sensitive-access and approval requirement, which annotations don't convey. However, the 'unless SENSITIVE_WRITE' exemption is cryptic and unexplained, and no return or pagination behavior is disclosed. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded. The all-caps SENSITIVE clause is terse to the point of being cryptic, but the overall definition is appropriately compact.

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 four undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and the relationship to hcm_get_payslip. The sensitive-access flag is the only meaningful contextual addition, and even it is confusing due to the SENSITIVE_WRITE reference.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters. The 'finder' parameter is an Oracle HCM-specific concept that is left undefined, and q, limit, and offset, while conventional, are not confirmed by any descriptive text. The description fails to compensate for the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('payslips'), so an agent knows what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling hcm_get_payslip or clarify the scope of the search (e.g., all employees vs self-service), leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this search versus the sibling hcm_get_payslip or any other alternative. The only usage context is the access prerequisite (ORACLE_HCM_SENSITIVE=1 + approval), which is a precondition but not a tool-selection rule.

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