get_salary_benchmarks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does: it specifies the data source (verified, active postings), the aggregation granularity (25th, median, 75th percentile), and the output style (ASCII distribution visualization). It does not discuss edge cases like missing data or invalid locations, so it does not earn full marks.

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 entire description is one dense, information-rich sentence with no filler. Every element contributes to the tool's purpose, source, output, and presentation style.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of percentile benchmarks and ASCII visualization meaningfully covers the return format. The parameter schema covers inputs completely. The only gap is absence of behavior for empty or insufficient compensation data.

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 the schema already documents role_title, location, and currency. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not extra credit territory.

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 a specific action and resource: it aggregates verified compensation into percentile benchmarks. It clearly differentiates this tool from the job-listing, company-listing, and resume-matching siblings by focusing on market-level compensation analytics.

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 description implies the tool is for compensation-market research but never states when to use it versus alternatives or provides any exclusion guidance. The intended use is reasonably inferable from the name and content, but explicit routing is absent.

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