get_salary

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful data-source context but does not explain the non-read-only behavior, any refresh/cache side effects, or how 'aktualisieren' affects execution.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently states the data type, statistics included, and source.

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 7-parameter, open-world tool with a non-read-only annotation, the description is too sparse. Although an output schema exists and schema coverage is high, the description still lacks sibling routing and does not clarify the side-effect-related 'aktualisieren' parameter.

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 high at 86%, so most parameter meaning already comes from the schema. The description adds only 'nach Beruf', implicitly mapping to the kldb parameter, and says nothing about filters such as alter, niveau, region, branche, geschlecht, or the undocumented 'aktualisieren' boolean.

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 identifies a specific resource: official median salaries with quartiles by occupation from the BA Entgeltatlas. It is more specific than the name alone and implicitly distinguishes the source from commercial salary siblings like adzuna_salary, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus adzuna_salary or other occupation-related siblings. It also does not state prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions.

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