normalize_payroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the transformation (merge by person cross-entity/month), output types, and the overrides mechanism. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., does it modify original files?) or permissions required, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for most use cases.

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 compact paragraph that covers purpose, parameters, and output. It is front-loaded with the main function. The overrides_json description is detailed but necessary. Slightly verbose for the parameter descriptions, but overall efficient.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, one required, no enums, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how to use each parameter, and what the return JSON contains. It lacks details on error scenarios or file format expectations, but is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: defines folder, output_dir with default, and overrides_json with a detailed format example including the structure of column_map and standard field names. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 'normalize' and the resource 'payroll files in a folder', specifies the outputs (standard template xlsx and report md), and distinguishes from siblings like generate_blank_template by focusing on processing existing files.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. It includes hints about optional overrides for problematic files, but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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