buk_salary_history

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: it will not infer or backfill missing salary history, so gaps mean no data rather than estimation. It does not describe output shape or error behavior for an unknown ficha.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the limitation stated last; no filler. Minor cost is unexplained domain jargon ('ficha'), which an agent must infer means employee_id.

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?

A five-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions leaves real gaps: no return structure, no currency/units for wages, no month format, no default disclosure, and no statement of what happens when the ficha has no records. Adequate to call correctly, but not complete.

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 must compensate, and it does reasonably: 'one exact ficha' maps to employee_id, the endpoint-month phrasing maps to start/end_month, CPI comparison maps to compare_cpi, and 'historical payroll' maps to include_payroll. It still omits the YYYY-MM format and the defaults (include_payroll=true, compare_cpi=false), which the schema supplies only structurally.

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 (Get) with a precisely scoped resource: contractual base-wage history, salary changes and historical payroll for one exact employee identified by ficha. It also names the optional CPI comparison axis, which distinguishes it from buk_team_payroll and buk_compare_salary_to_cpi.

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?

'for one exact ficha' implicitly excludes team/bulk lookups, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer buk_compare_salary_to_cpi or buk_team_payroll. The 'does not infer missing salary history' line is a useful exclusion, but only about data, not about sibling selection.

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