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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: this is a synthesized analyst report with sourced figures, official statistics, percentiles and citations, that free Ask GWIX answers are consumed first, and that the result reports credits used — credit consumption is exactly the kind of cost signal annotations cannot convey.

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 core scope and the sibling alternative are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the right ordering. The second sentence is a long enumeration of report contents that earns its place as return-value context but could be tightened.

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, yet the description enumerates what comes back — percentiles, trends, comparisons, chart data, interpretation, and a citation per figure — and notes credit usage. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and set expectations.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the industry/setting dimension and does not add syntax, format, or interaction rules (e.g. how industries interacts with occupation_code). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific resource (pay for a job) and the exact dimension of variation (industry or work setting) with concrete examples like hospitals vs outpatient care and tech vs finance. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from salary_and_hiring_report, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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 sentence 'For one overall pay figure, use salary_and_hiring_report' is an explicit routing rule to the closest alternative, and the example settings show what kind of question fits. It does not address overlap with siblings that also take place parameters (e.g. compare_pay_by_location), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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