get_salary_history_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses ordering (most recent first), optional filters, and the exact list of returned fields, giving a transparent view of the tool's output and basic behavior. It doesn't discuss edge cases or error handling, but for a simple read-style query this is strong.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. The Args/Returns structure is standard and immediately parseable, with no wasted words.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior, parameters, ordering, and return shape. For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, this is complete and leaves no major ambiguity.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains 'year' as an optional filter and 'limit' as the max months with default 12. This adds semantic value beyond the raw type/default fields in 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?

The description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get salary history' ordered by most recent month first. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_payslip_details_tool or search_payslip_items, which focus on individual payslips or searching items.

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?

It establishes clear context (retrieving salary history by month) and mentions optional year filtering and limit, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. This is 'clear context, no exclusions' per the rubric, so a 4 is appropriate.

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