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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral specifics: returns national typical + range, methodology, citation, and that brand ambassadors are shown by market tier. This adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, use cases, exclusions, examples, and hints. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's core functionality thoroughly: what it returns, methodology, citation format, use cases, and alternatives. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Complete for a national benchmark tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that passing tier adds each role's measured span within that tier (tier_usd), and examples show usage. This clarifies the parameter's effect beyond the schema.

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 returns all-inclusive W-2 hourly bill rates by role from 407 markets, with typical rate, national range, methodology, and citation. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying not to use for one city's price or building an event budget.

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?

Explicitly states perfect use cases (e.g., 'What do event staff cost in 2026?') and exclusions (e.g., 'DO NOT use for one city's price (use get_role_pricing) or to build an event budget (use plan_staffing)'). Also includes hints directing to get_role_pricing for one city.

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