payroll_payroll_settings_technician_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint that the fetch is for exactly one technician, but does not describe response format or any additional behavior. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then a helpful pointer to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 single-parameter read tool with a required field, 100% schema description coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary operational context. The alternative routing is also included, so an agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool 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 schema covers the single parameter, technicianId, with a description of 'Technician ID' at 100% coverage. The description only reinforces that the ID is required and identifies the technician; it adds no additional semantic detail such as format, source, or validation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('payroll settings'), and a specific scope ('for one technician by the required technician ID'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling list tool by emphasizing that it targets one technician, so an agent can tell it apart from related payroll endpoints.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool, payroll_payroll_settings_list, and gives the exact condition for choosing it: when the technician ID is unknown. This is clear routing guidance and leaves little to inference.

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