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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: rates include W-2 pay, workers comp, liability, and payroll taxes. It also warns against presenting as binding quote, which is beyond what annotations cover.

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 a clear purpose, usage examples, and hints. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. The use of <examples> and <hints> tags helps parsing.

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, the description adequately explains the return (hourly rate range) and includes important caveats (all-inclusive, non-binding). It covers all necessary aspects for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 describes both parameters (role, city) with examples. The description adds meaningful context: examples of valid inputs, hints that both accept names or slugs, and the special floor value for Brand Ambassadors. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 'Get the all-inclusive hourly rate range for a specific role in a specific city.' It provides example questions that directly illustrate the tool's function, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_availability and plan_staffing.

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 tells when to use ('What does it cost...' questions) and when not to (DO NOT use for availability or dates; never present as binding quote). Directs to alternative tools: check_availability for dates and plan_staffing for multi-role budget.

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