search_payslip_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the SQL LIKE matching mechanism, the grouping/summation behavior, and the return format (per-month breakdown and grand totals), which is substantial behavioral detail. It does not discuss edge cases or explicit read-only status, but the search nature implies it.

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: a one-line summary, a brief technical explanation, an Args list, and a return statement. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the most important 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 tool with three simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the search behavior, parameter semantics, and return shape. It omits minor edge cases (e.g., behavior with no results), but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 provides only type and default information, with zero semantic descriptions. The description's 'Args' section adds meaningful detail: keyword examples ('Straordinario', 'Ferie'), start_year as a 'from' filter, and end_year as an 'up to' filter. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('payslip line items by description keyword'). It also mentions the underlying table and matching method, distinguishing it from siblings like get_payslip_details_tool.

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 (searches by keyword, groups by month/year) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implied.

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