get_salary_insurance_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only operation ('get') and key scope, but lacks details on response structure, pagination, or data coverage. The term 'salary insurance' is ambiguous as it does not specify whether it includes labor, health, or pension contributions.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb 'get' and the target object, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read with one required and four optional parameters, and the description clearly conveys the core scope (per-employee, date-based). However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the agent may not know what fields the 'detail' includes, which slightly affects completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive titles and comments (e.g., search_date format, dept_code filter). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' with a precise resource 'per-employee salary insurance contribution detail' and a temporal scope 'for a given date'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_monthly_labor_insurance which focus on monthly aggregates.

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 when to use the tool: when needing per-employee insurance contribution details for a specific date. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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