consultar_taules_salarials

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds context about returned fields (grup, nivell, etc.) and a special case for 'alts_carrecs'. It does not disclose read/write behavior, side effects, or limitations beyond what the schema indicates. The 'any' parameter (year) is briefly exemplified but not fully explained.

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 concise (5 lines) and efficiently conveys purpose, return fields, special case, and available options. No fluff, though it could integrate the list of cossos more compactly.

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 presence of an output schema and full param coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's main purpose, output content, and key parameter (cos) options. It omits details about limit and categoria usage but those are covered in schema descriptions.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. The description redundantly lists the cos values and mentions an example for 'any' ('2024'), but adds no substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for opaque parameters.

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 consults official salary tables by 'cos' (body) of the Generalitat, specifies returned fields (grup, nivell, sou base, complements, total mensual/anual), and lists available cossos. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'cercar_retribucions_alts_carrecs', which likely serves a similar purpose for high officials.

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 by listing cossos and noting a special case for 'alts_carrecs', but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other salary tools). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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