get_salary_and_zulagen_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety warnings are needed. The description adds that the result includes all steps with Grundgehalt and all selectable allowances/family allowance rules, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral caveats.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with a clear 'DISCOVERY:' label and a comprehensive list of returned data. It is appropriately sized, though the long list of result categories could be structured slightly more readably without losing information.

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 output schema, full parameter descriptions, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and inputs. It captures the core return categories and implies the conditional employmentType/dienstherr/tarifvertrag requirements without needing to restate them.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description only restates the core inputs (Dienstherr/Tarifvertrag, Gruppe) without adding new syntax, formatting, or conditional-dependency details beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'Liefert' and specifies a concrete resource: salary steps with basic salary, selectable position allowances, office allowances, and family allowance rules for a Dienstherr/Tarifvertrag and a group. It clearly indicates a discovery/lookup role rather than a calculation tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the calculate_* siblings.

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 'DISCOVERY:' prefix and the scope ('für einen Dienstherrn oder Tarifvertrag und eine Gruppe') imply this tool is for retrieving salary-table and allowance options. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over calculate_agent_salary or calculate_standard_salary, nor does it give exclusions, so the guidance is 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.