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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful operational context that annotations cannot convey — the 50-occupation batch limit and that the result contains the requested wage measure per occupation. It says nothing about failure behavior for invalid codes or missing areas.

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?

Five short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the input format, then the return value, then the helper tool, then the limit. Each line adds distinct information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the definition leaves a real gap for a 5-parameter tool: how scope and area_code interact is the main way a call goes wrong, and neither is addressed. Batch-size and code-format guidance are covered adequately.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it only explains occ_codes (6-digit SOC, array, max 50). The critical scope/area_code relationship — that scope selects national/state/metro and area_code identifies the matching area — is unstated, and year and datatype are never mentioned beyond the vague "specified wage measure".

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 and resource ("Compare wages across multiple occupations in one location"), and the "in one location" phrasing implicitly separates it from compare_metros, which varies location instead. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition (pass a list of 6-digit SOC codes) and routes the agent to list_common_soc_codes for code discovery, plus a hard cap of 50 per call. It does not say when to prefer get_wage_data or igce_wage_benchmark instead, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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