adzuna_salary

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

With annotations present, the description adds real context: it discloses the required Adzuna API credentials and that data comes from an open-world source (Adzuna ads), matching openWorldHint. However, readOnlyHint=false is left unexplained, and the aktualisieren/refresh behavior is not described, so an agent cannot tell why this appears non-read-only. Useful but incomplete beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the auth caveat, then the sibling alternative. No filler. Slightly compressed by the parenthetical key names, but every clause earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, credential requirement, and the get_salary alternative. The remaining gap is the unexplained refresh/aktualisieren semantics and the readOnlyHint=false discrepancy, which keeps it from a 5.

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 60%, so the schema documents was, standort, and kategorie but leaves monate and aktualisieren undocumented. The description adds little beyond the schema — at most it hints that kategorie drives the Gehaltsverlauf. It does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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 the resource specifically (Gehaltsverteilung/Histogramm, Top-Arbeitgeber, optional Gehaltsverlauf) and its source (Adzuna-Inseraten), so an agent knows exactly what data it returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_salary by referencing that tool's domain (amtliche Medianentgelte, Entgeltatlas). It lacks an explicit action verb, phrasing everything as a noun list, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 explicitly routes the agent to get_salary for official median wages by occupation, which is a clear when-to-use-alternative signal. It also surfaces the prerequisite (free Adzuna developer key via env vars). It does not spell out a full when-not-to-use matrix against the other siblings, so it stops at 4.

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