buk_compare_salary_to_cpi

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds real value: it names the external authority (INE), states what is returned, and reassures that no personal or salary data is transmitted externally. It stops short of discussing external-service failure modes or latency, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, all earning their place: capability, return values, then a privacy note. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Covers inputs at a high level, enumerates all returned metrics in lieu of an output schema, and discloses the external dependency plus privacy posture. Only the month-format and error/timeout behavior for the external CPI call are missing.

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 carries the burden: 'two CLP salaries in exact months' loosely maps to initial_salary/final_salary and start_month/end_month, and CLP is fixed. However the expected YYYY-MM month format and the currency parameter/default are never explained in prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (compare two CLP salaries) with the method (official INE linked Chile CPI indices) and enumerates the outputs. It is plainly distinct from the payroll/employee siblings, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 use case (inflation-adjusted salary comparison between two exact months) is implied by the verb and the stated outputs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as buk_salary_history for raw historical figures.

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