salary_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by mentioning 'metadata', but does not state whether the tool returns a summary, a list, or any other format. No information is given about side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is too sparse to be transparent.

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 concise phrase, front-loaded with the key term 'EU salary database metadata'. It wastes no words and is easily scannable. However, it might be too terse to fully convey the tool's function, slightly reducing the score below perfect conciseness.

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's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a minimal but somewhat adequate overview. It mentions the general domains covered. However, it lacks specifics about what kind of metadata is returned (e.g., counts, names, dates) and does not outline the output structure, making it incomplete for an agent that must understand the tool's full behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4 regardless of description content. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description need not add parameter-level detail. The minimal note about coverage indirectly suggests what the metadata contains, which is adequate in this case.

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 'EU salary database metadata — countries, sectors, occupations coverage' gives a general sense of the resource (EU salary database) and its scope (countries, sectors, occupations), but lacks a clear verb indicating action. It distinguishes partially from siblings like 'salary_lv_wages' by focusing on metadata rather than actual wage data, but the phrasing is more nominal than descriptive of a tool operation.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use case, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools. The user is left to infer that the tool is for obtaining metadata, but no clear conditions or exclusions are stated.

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