Career salary ranking

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description is free to add provenance: the salary figures come from Jobvision's own survey and are therefore not limited to ads that show pay, unlike jv_pay_stats. It also gives the unit (million Toman per month). It does not say how ties are broken or what happens when limit exceeds the ~100 title pool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose leads, then the concrete use case, then the compare/contrast with a sibling and the hand-off to jv_career. Three sentences, no filler, and the parenthetical about survey provenance is load-bearing rather than decorative.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what comes back (a ranked list of job titles on the chosen dimension) and three fully documented parameters. It does not describe the shape of a ranked row (e.g. whether satisfaction score or ad counts are included per entry), which is the main residual gap for a listing tool.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what the salary sort actually means (median salary from a survey, in million Toman per month) and by implying the filter matches partial job titles through its example. It still leaves the interplay between query and limit unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb (rank) and resource (~100 job titles in Jobvision's career guide) plus the three ranking dimensions. It explicitly separates this tool from jv_pay_stats and points to jv_career for per-job detail, so an agent can place it among siblings 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?

It names two concrete user intents ('which jobs pay the most', 'what does an accountant earn') that map to this tool, and states explicitly which tool to call instead for duties/skills/distribution (jv_career) and how it differs from jv_pay_stats. That is when-to-use plus alternatives, not mere implication.

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