get_compensation_benchmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (percentiles, mean, min, max, breakdowns by sector and market-cap tier) and implies read-only behavior. No mention of side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, but the output specification is sufficient for a benchmarking tool.

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?

Description is a single long sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, output, and use cases without wasted words. Could be split into two for better readability, but front-loads the main 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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output structure and primary use cases. It lacks details on data frequency (annual/quarterly) and year parameter behavior, but overall covers the essential context for a benchmark tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats the allowed role values from the schema without adding new meaning or format details. Thus, it does not significantly supplement the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'compensation percentile benchmarking' for executive or board roles across NZX companies. Lists specific percentiles and breakdowns, and provides use cases like market pay rates and peer benchmarks, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use for questions about...' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools among the many siblings, missing some exclusion guidance.

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