finance__pay_band

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well by disclosing that small categories resolve to individual pay and are refused under policy COC-HR-031. This reveals an important failure behavior and privacy constraint that an agent would not otherwise know.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the constraint is stated efficiently with a policy reference rather than unnecessary explanation.

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 tool with no annotations, the description provides the core purpose, the key boundary condition, and a refusal behavior. It does not describe the exact return format or currency, but the meaning of 'average pay' is clear enough to make a correct call.

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 schema already documents the single 'category' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by defining the ten-person threshold and clarifying that broad categories are appropriate, which helps the agent choose a safe input value.

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 opens with 'Average pay for a category of workers', which names the specific operation, resource, and scope. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which cover on-call, timecards, posts, budget roles, and headcount planning rather than pay aggregation.

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 gives concrete guidance on when the tool can and cannot be used: categories with fewer than ten people are refused, while broad categories such as job family or location are acceptable. It does not name alternative tools, but the when/when-not guidance is explicit enough for the simple parameter set.

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