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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool returns data (min/max/median) and does not contradict any safety assumptions, but it does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only or mention any rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects. It adds only the return-value context, which is minimal but not misleading.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then specifies filters and return fields. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only benchmark tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: input filters, return values, and currency. It does not mention error cases or pagination, but neither is critical for a tool this straightforward, so it is complete enough.

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 parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds value by specifying that the salary is in USD and scoped to remote jobs, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the optional nature of filters without repeating the schema text, enhancing beyond baseline.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('salary benchmarks'), and scoping ('remote jobs by job title'), with clear output fields (min, max, median in USD). It is distinct from siblings like get_jobs or get_related_jobs, which focus on job listings rather than benchmarks.

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 when to use it (to retrieve salary benchmarks) but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor exclusions. With 39 sibling tools, some routing context would help, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer typical use cases.

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