workers_salary_quote

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 that the tool debits the account, adds add_usd*3600 tt, and raises salary, and that it is a preview only until confirmed. This is moderately transparent. However, it does not mention reversibility, what the output contains, or any side effects beyond the debit, which leaves gaps.

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 three sentences, making it fairly concise. The main action is front-loaded. However, the language is informal and includes jargon ('solary', 'tt') that may confuse an AI agent. Some sentences could be clearer or more structured. It is not overly verbose but lacks polish.

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 tool has two parameters, an output schema, and is part of a salary system, the description is incomplete. It explains the preview and debit behavior but fails to describe the group_id parameter, the output content, or what 'tt' means. The informal terms and missing details leave the agent without enough information to reliably use the tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. The description explains the add_usd parameter by showing its role in the formula 'add_usd*3600 tt'. However, the group_id parameter is not mentioned at all, and its default empty string is not clarified. Only one of two parameters is partially explained, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states it previews raising YOUR contribution by whole USD, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling workers_salary_confirm by noting the preview nature and that it does not charge until confirm. However, the phrasing is informal and includes unclear terms like 'solary' and 'tt', slightly reducing clarity.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool by mentioning 'Does not charge until workers_salary_confirm(quote_id, confirm=true)' and 'Other admins can raise their own share'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the confirm step. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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