Holded team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only notes the comma decimal separator for salary amounts, which is a useful detail. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., delete_payslip_payment is destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or the gating mechanism of the 'confirm' parameter. This is a significant gap for a tool with many actions.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the domain ('Employees and payroll records') and then lists actions with parameter hints. It is efficient and avoids filler, but the action list is lengthy and could benefit from grouping or structured formatting. Still, it is appropriately sized and does not waste words.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and only partial parameter mapping, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly across all actions. It does not specify required parameters per action, return formats, error handling, or how to handle pagination (cursor/limit are mentioned in schema but not in description). The description is a catalog but not a complete usage guide.

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 36%, so the description must compensate. It maps some actions to their relevant parameters (e.g., list_salary_records to employee_id, start_date, end_date; salary_record_pdf to output_path), which adds value. However, it omits parameter semantics for many actions and does not explain generic fields like 'data', 'confirm', 'kind', or 'search'. The comma decimal separator note adds useful context for salary-related parameters.

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 identifies the resource domain as 'Employees and payroll records' and enumerates the available actions, making the tool's scope apparent. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'manage' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the domain, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a flat list of actions without selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the domain that this tool handles employee/payroll data, but there is no explicit routing instruction to aid decision-making.

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