datetime.payroll_period

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description goes beyond them by spelling out the exact interval rule (start on start_day, end the day before next month's start_day) and the hard constraint that 29–31 is unsupported. Missing is what happens on an invalid start_day (error vs clamp), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences ordered as output-what → rule → caveat, with no filler. Slight density cost comes from packing the range, default and unsupported-case into one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema text needed and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete for correct invocation. A note on invalid start_day handling or on whether as_of is clamped would close the remaining edge case.

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%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it largely does: as_of is shown as YYYY-MM-DD and start_day is bounded to 1~28 with default 1 plus its effect on the interval end. The only redundancy is restating the default already present in 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?

Starts with a precise verb-and-resource statement: it computes period_start and period_end of the monthly payroll settlement period containing as_of. An agent immediately knows this is a payroll-period boundary calculator, distinct from generic date arithmetic or tax-period siblings.

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 closing sentence '지급일이 아닌 산정 기간이며' pre-empts the most likely misuse (treating the result as a pay date) and states an explicit unsupported case (start_day 29~31). It does not name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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