get_employee_salary_schema

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

The description indicates a read-only metadata retrieval operation ('Return the schema') and has no annotations to contradict this. However, it offers no additional behavioral context, such as whether the schema is cached, whether authentication is required, or any limitations. For such a simple tool, the basic behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 description is a single concise sentence with the key action and resource front-loaded. The phrase 'for AI/agent use' is mildly redundant because the tool is already defined in an agent context, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

For a zero-parameter metadata tool with a provided output schema, the description sufficiently states the returned object. It lacks explicit guidance on when to call it relative to sibling tools, but the simplicity of the operation and the presence of an output schema make the definition essentially 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema naturally covers all parameter semantics (100% coverage). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter details and none are missing.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('schema of the employee_salary table'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly differs from sibling tools read_employee_salary and query_employee_salary, which would fetch data rather than metadata.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling read/query tools. The agent must infer from the tool name and context that this is the metadata lookup and the others are data access, which is not explicit.

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