Lookup Salary Benchmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that figures are 'indicative' (approximate, not authoritative) and that output is split into three seniority bands across a fixed location set. It says nothing about currency, data freshness, or what a missing location yields.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the returned data and its dimensionality (seniority levels, locations) before the scoping qualifiers. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the data scope is clear. But for a compensation tool the currency basis (local vs. USD) and the behavior of the default-null location are meaningful omissions an agent would want before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does enumerate the accepted location values (US, EU, UK, Türkiye, remote) — a constraint absent from the schema's free-form string — but gives no format guidance for 'role' and does not explain what happens when the nullable location is omitted.

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 names the resource precisely — junior/mid/senior annual salary bands — and scopes it by role and location, so an agent can tell it apart from the job-search, fit-evaluation and application siblings. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, but 'Lookup' in the name plus the stated data content makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as search_jobs or evaluate_job_fit, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the data it returns (e.g., useful when assessing compensation for a posting), which the agent must infer.

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