list_salary_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read scope requirement, that results are cursor-paginated, the fields returned (employee info, earnings/deductions lines, totals), and enumerates payment status values — solid behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense sentences, zero waste. The core action and resource lead, then prerequisites and result shape follow in priority order.

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 compensates by sketching the returned record structure and status enum. What's missing is field naming or ordering guidance an agent would need to parse results, but the shape is otherwise adequately conveyed.

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 100% with only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'cursor-paginated' reinforces the cursor semantics but adds no new detail about limit defaults or paging size.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List payroll salary records') and the record shape. The 'list' verb distinguishes it from get_salary_record/create_salary_record siblings, though it doesn't name them 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?

Provides the required scope (accounting:payrolls.read), which is a genuine prerequisite an agent needs before calling. However it never states when to use this vs. get_salary_record for a single record, nor what filters are available for narrowing the listing.

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