negotiate_benchmark_range

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it uses a bundled dataset, returns the closest match with approximate=True, and notes when exact matches are absent. This adds meaningful context beyond the input 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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 the input schema, full parameter descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, data source, and matching strategy without needing further elaboration.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the underlying dataset and the approximation behavior, which enriches the understanding of how parameters affect the returned benchmark.

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 states it returns a sourced salary benchmark for a role/seniority/region, using a bundled dataset. It distinguishes itself from siblings like negotiate_total_comp by focusing on benchmark retrieval rather than total compensation calculation.

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 implies use for obtaining benchmark salary data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like negotiate_total_comp or other negotiation tools. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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