CheckMyPayRate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output semantics (below/near/above plus percentage delta). However, it never defines the thresholds that separate 'below', 'near' and 'above', and says nothing about read-only nature, currency handling, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the inputs, the comparison, and the returned verdict with zero filler. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers them; inputs are fully documented in the schema. The only notable gap is the undefined below/near/above thresholds, which an agent cannot infer.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented including the currency basis, examples and a pointer to list_options. The description only restates the same fields, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (compare) plus resources (gross annual salary, country and sector benchmark) and even the output shape. It implicitly contrasts with get_salary_benchmark, but never names the sibling or explicitly distinguishes fetching a benchmark from comparing against one.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'compare' against a benchmark, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to get_salary_benchmark when the agent only needs the benchmark itself. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the figure is gross, annual, and average, plus the public data sources. It omits currency/unit handling, behavior for missing country-sector pairs, and any latency or coverage caveats.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the metric, the dimensions, and the source with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and params need not be explained. The description adequately frames a simple read-only lookup, missing only minor detail on currency/units and lookup failure behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% and both params are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the same two dimensions with no additional syntax, format, or enumeration detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get the gross average annual salary') with an explicit scope (country and sector) and data provenance (OECD/Eurostat). It is clearly distinguishable from compare_salary and list_options by resource, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like compare_salary. It also never mentions list_options, even though the schema defers valid country/sector codes to it — that routing exists only in the schema, not the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' strongly implies a safe read-only lookup and the mention of 'each country's currency' adds a hint about returned content, but it says nothing about result format, whether the list is static, or how codes should be used downstream.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the returned entities (country codes, sector codes) and the extra field (currency) with zero filler. Nothing is redundant.

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 must describe the return content, and it does name the three things returned (country codes, sector codes, currencies). It is nearly complete for such a simple tool, though it omits the shape/grouping of the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless enumeration with no filtering or pagination options.

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 and resource: it lists country codes and sector codes supported by the salary benchmarks, plus their currencies. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling benchmark/comparison tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'supported by the salary benchmarks' implies this is the discovery/reference tool to consult before calling get_salary_benchmark or compare_salary, but that inference is left to the agent rather than stated.

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