Deel Get Payment Receipts

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 useful context that results show payments to contractors and that the tool serves as payment proof, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or what the response contains beyond that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a direct use-case pointer. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary commentary.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation with complete schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that it mentions 'specific Deel payments' while the schema offers no filter or payment ID parameter, which could slightly overstate precision.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional limit parameter, the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description does not need to add parameter detail, so a baseline score of 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 names a clear verb and resource: 'Get payment receipts from Deel showing payments made to contractors.' It also adds a targeted use case, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like deel_get_invoices or get_payroll_summary, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use when the user asks about specific Deel payments or needs payment proof.' This is a clear trigger condition, though it does not state when not to use the tool or name an alternative for invoice-related requests.

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