get_salary_histogram

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 and does so effectively. It describes important constraints (only includes jobs with listed salaries), explains how to interpret results (annual salaries in local currency, typical bucket increments), and documents error conditions including rate limits and authentication failures. The only minor gap is it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, though 'Get' implies it is.

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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, IMPORTANT, Args, Returns, Example, How to interpret, Errors) and every sentence adds value. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and complex output interpretation. The only minor improvement would be slightly tighter phrasing in some sections.

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 complexity (4 parameters, histogram output, country-specific behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, output interpretation with examples, and error conditions. The output schema handles the return structure, while the description explains how to interpret the histogram data, creating a comprehensive package.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing rich semantic information for all parameters. It explains what 'country' controls (currency), lists supported values, clarifies that keywords/location/category are filters with examples, and notes which parameters have null defaults. This goes well beyond what the bare 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('salary distribution histogram for jobs matching search criteria'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on salary histogram data rather than job listings (search_jobs), categories (get_categories), or other data types. The PURPOSE section reinforces this with concrete use cases.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives through the IMPORTANT section ('Only includes jobs WITH listed salaries') and by contrasting with sibling tools. The PURPOSE section lists three specific scenarios where this tool is useful, and the description implicitly distinguishes it from search_jobs (which returns job listings rather than aggregated salary data).

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