adzuna_estimate_salary

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the tool's predictive behavior (single figure, Adzuna Jobsworth), output formats (markdown/json), and error handling. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the description adds useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns) and no unnecessary words. It is concise yet comprehensive, earning its place with every sentence.

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?

Given the simple input/output structure, the description covers input parameters, output format, error behavior, and comparison to siblings. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional explanation.

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 description includes an Args section that briefly explains each parameter (title, country, description, response_format), but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for these. Since schema description coverage is reported as 0% (though the schema itself contains descriptions), the description adds limited extra value beyond restating schema information.

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 tool's purpose: 'Estimate an annual salary for a role from its title and description.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with histogram/history tools that summarize live ads, making the unique value proposition explicit.

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 specifies when to use this tool ('pricing a CV target or sanity-checking a job ad that states no salary') and explicitly identifies alternatives ('Unlike the histogram/history tools'), providing clear usage guidance.

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