List Keka Employee Salaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not burdened with proving safety. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns sensitive compensation data, the API key must have payroll read access, and the response includes CTC, pay group, currency, and effective date. 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?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then a high-visibility warning, then a compact Args list, then return fields. It is not overly verbose for a 6-parameter tool, and each section is easy to parse. Some duplication with the schema exists, but it remains a concise executable summary.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return content by naming CTC, pay group, currency, and effective date. It also covers permission requirements, filtering options, pagination, and response format. It could be slightly more explicit about behavior when no filters are provided, but the optional parameters and defaults make the intended behavior clear.

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 already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions, defaults, enums, and limits, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description's Args section largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning. The only added context is the sensitivity warning, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Retrieve salary information for employees from Keka payroll.' It identifies the exact resource (salary information) and distinguishes it from sibling list tools covering leave types, pay groups, employees, departments, etc. The return fields (CTC, pay group, currency, effective date) further clarify the tool's unique purpose.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever salary/compensation data is needed, and it warns that payroll read access is required. It also references keka_list_pay_groups for obtaining pay group IDs, which is an explicit pointer to a sibling. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the resource distinction is clear enough.

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