salary_histogram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format (keys are lower bounds, values are vacancy counts) and parameter semantics including AND logic. However, it does not specify salary band widths, how vacancies without salaries are handled, or the recency of 'current' data, leaving some behavioral assumptions unstated.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the purpose, then describes the return structure, followed by a clear per-parameter list. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return format, and parameter semantics thoroughly, including cross-references for valid values. It falls short only in not describing salary band boundaries or edge-case behavior (e.g., empty results), but these are minor within the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each of the four parameters: country with ISO examples, what with AND semantics, category as a reference to list_categories, and location as a hierarchical list with an example and pointer to regional_data. This exceeds 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current distribution of salaries for a job search as a histogram.' The verb 'get' and resource 'salary distribution' are specific, and the qualifier 'current' distinguishes it from the sibling 'historical_salary'.

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 usage when a current salary histogram is needed, and parameter semantics provide context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like historical_salary or search_jobs, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The only cross-reference is 'See regional_data' for location discovery, which is about parameter values, not tool selection.

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