get_compensation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not mention the version selection (last/first/all), the aggregation detail modes, or the date/versioning behavior of the data, all of which materially change the response.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing needs trimming. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing, and it is not front-loaded with any actionable instruction.

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?

The rich schema (including enums) and the existing output schema remove the need to explain parameters or return values. Still, for a tool with four parameters and three similar governance siblings, the description leaves the selection decision and the effect of the version/detail options entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter (year, cd_cvm, detail, version) is already documented in the schema with defaults and enum meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does all the work.

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 names the resource (compensation) and its scope (board, officers, fiscal council), so an agent knows what data comes back. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from nearby tools such as get_board or get_capital, which cover overlapping governance subject matter.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. that cd_cvm must come from search_company), and no named alternative or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the compensation-specific lookup rather than get_board or governance_practices.

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