buk_team_payroll

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context: how the standard employer cost is derived (reconciled earning/contribution/family-allowance lines), that custom Finance-approved expense accounts are honored, and that missing data are surfaced explicitly rather than silently dropped. It stops short of describing output shape or the cost of a wide open-world lookup.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and its data basis, with no filler. Slightly dense in the second sentence (reconciled earning/contribution/family-allowance lines) but every clause carries information.

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 12-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the calculation model and default scope but is silent on the team-vs-area_ids/company_id resolution path (documented only in the schema), currency handling, and what the returned breakdown looks like. Adequate, but an agent would still guess on several inputs.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain include_open (closed-only default), compare_previous (prior-month change), expense_accounts (Finance-approved, standard-cost derivation) and family-allowance handling, but leaves area_ids, company_id, cost_centers, payroll_currency, include_accounting and include_descendants entirely unaddressed.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (calculate) and resource (team monthly gross/net payroll, employee breakdown, prior-month change) plus the data source (historical jobs). It is clearly distinct from buk_salary_history or buk_recurring_payroll, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 states a default scope ('Only closed payroll is included by default') but gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and never points to buk_salary_history, buk_recurring_payroll or buk_compare_salary_to_cpi as alternatives. An agent must infer selection criteria from the sibling names alone.

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