calculate_salary_comparison_ppp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format as a JSON object with specific fields, giving some insight. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, or limitations (e.g., data freshness, error conditions). With no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate for partial disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key data (PPP factors), and the second sentence specifies the return format and related tool. Every part is informative and necessary.

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?

The description is adequate for a tool with 3 simple parameters and clear enum constraints. It specifies the return structure, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It could mention edge cases (e.g., zero salary) or behavior on invalid inputs, but overall it is sufficiently 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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by listing the PPP factors for each country, which helps the agent understand the conversion logic. This goes beyond the schema's enum values, justifying a 4.

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 'Compare', the resource 'salaries', and the context 'across countries using PPP'. It provides specific PPP values for countries, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also mentions a related tool 'list_bundles', helping to distinguish from sibling calculators.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for salary comparison with PPP). It explicitly mentions related 'vie-quotidienne' calculators via 'list_bundles', guiding the agent to alternative tools. However, it does not include explicit 'when not to use' or exclusions.

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