salary_breakdown

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the basic calculation function but does not address edge cases (e.g., negative salary, invalid frequency) or any behavioral traits like rounding or error handling.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second lists parameters. It is concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, the parameter list could be more integrated or structured as a bullet list for readability.

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?

Output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be described. The description covers the core functionality but lacks details on error handling, input validation, or examples, which for a simple tool is acceptable but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter: salary amount, frequency with allowed values ('annual', 'monthly', 'weekly', 'daily', 'hourly'), and currency code with default. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the verb 'calculate' and resource 'salary breakdown' with explicit time periods (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annual). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'salary_convert' which likely does single conversion, while this computes all equivalents.

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 usage by listing parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'salary_convert'. It provides no exclusions or contextual guidance beyond the parameter list.

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