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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the response is fast (a few seconds), includes a citation, and is a preview that should be shown immediately before escalating. It does not clarify fallback behavior when place/country are omitted, but the added latency and output context is genuine value.

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 directive is front-loaded ('Use first...') and the two sentences are largely purposeful. There is mild redundancy between 'show its summary to the user immediately' and 'Show it to the user straight away, then call ask_gwix', which repeats the same instruction instead of adding 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics and noting the citation. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the three parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it and to know what comes back.

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 100%, so the schema already documents place, country, and the SOC 2018 occupation_code format with examples. The description reinforces the occupation-plus-place framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('show its summary', a fast summary for an occupation in a place) and lists exactly what is returned: median and middle-half advertised pay, gap to national market, YoY change, and ad volume. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_gwix by positioning itself as the quick preview.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when a question names a job (and a place or country)') plus an ordering instruction ('Use first') and names the alternative ('then call ask_gwix for the full report'). Both when-to-use and the escalation path are stated directly.

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