Salary figures

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive); the description adds substantial context beyond them: figures are net monthly in Toman, reported at five percentiles, cover Persian years 1405 (requested) and 1404 (received), come from a survey rather than job ads, and have no per-city split. These caveats materially change how an agent should present the data.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the exclusivity rule, then the interpretive caveats, then the next step. Dense but every sentence carries information the agent needs; the trailing sibling suggestion is borderline but earns its place as navigation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return-value shape — it does, specifying percentile bands, currency (net monthly Toman), and reporting years. Combined with the exclusivity rule and source caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents both slugs. The description nonetheless adds the mutual-exclusion rule ("exactly one of report or specialty") that the schema itself does not encode — both parameters are optional with no anyOf constraint — plus the semantics that specialty expands to every seniority level.

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?

Names a specific verb (read) and resource (salary figures), and immediately distinguishes its two modes: one report vs. every seniority level of one specialty. An agent can tell this apart from it_salary_reports (which supplies slugs) or it_search_jobs (which returns ads) without opening a schema.

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?

"Give exactly one of report or specialty" is an explicit selection constraint, and the closing line routes the agent onward to it_search_jobs for live ads. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or which prerequisite tool to call first for slugs, so it stops short of fully prescriptive guidance.

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