cercar_directius_sector_public

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It specifies return fields and example entities but does not disclose behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, fuzzy search, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's offset/limit parameters. It is generally transparent but lacks detail.

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 short sentences that front-load the purpose and output details. Every sentence is informative, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool's complexity (6 optional parameters, search functionality, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose and output fields. However, it could be more complete by noting sorting behavior or handling of empty results. The examples help, but pagination is only implied via schema parameters.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds marginal value by listing example entities and output fields but does not elaborate on parameter semantics further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches salaries of public sector executives ('Cerca retribucions del personal directiu d'entitats del sector públic'), lists specific output fields (NOM, càrrec, entitat, departament, retribució fixa anual), and provides example entities. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'cercar_retribucions_alts_carrecs'.

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 implies usage for searching executive salary data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Context signals show many sibling tools, but no comparative guidance is given.

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