Overtime Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral insights beyond stating the output content (aggregation of hours and cost). It does not contradict 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 two concise sentences in English plus a Spanish translation. Every sentence adds information: purpose, output, usage context, and format. No redundancy or 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 presence of output schema, annotations, and clear parameter descriptions, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, output, and usage hints. It is complete for a read-only report generation tool.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explicitly stating period formats ('YYYY-MM', 'YYYY-QN', 'YYYY') and reinforces that employeeId is optional. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's brief 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 clearly states the verb 'generate', resource 'overtime report', and scope: 'aggregates regular vs overtime hours per employee + total estimated cost in EUR.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_time_summary by focusing specifically on overtime and payroll/labor-law use.

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 indicates usage context: 'useful for payroll prep and labor-law audits.' It provides period format examples but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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