Salarios (índice de salarios)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the series starts oct-2015, comes from INDEC, and defaults to monthly + interannual variations. It does not discuss latency, revision policy or output shape, but the output schema exists to cover the latter.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: scope and coverage come first, then the routing hint to the alternative. Nothing in it repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, a fully documented 4-parameter schema, an output schema and a sibling pointer, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly. No required parameters and clear defaults mean no missing prerequisite information.

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%, so sector enumerations, date formats and measure codes are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that monthly, interannual and accumulated variations exist, which lightly reinforces the 'measures' parameter without adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema — 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 resource (índice de salarios por sector), its publisher (INDEC), its temporal coverage (desde oct-2015) and the three variation types it returns. It also differentiates itself from the sibling compare_series by naming when that tool is the right one, so an agent can separate it from inflation_series and labor_market without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes one alternative case — 'Para compararlos con la inflación usá compare_series' — which is clear when-to-use guidance for the most likely confusion. It does not state exclusions or conditions for the remaining siblings (labor_market, latest_indicators), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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