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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: benchmarks are published monthly, match the bands on gccdomestic.com, and use AED for UAE and SAR for Saudi Arabia. It does not describe default behavior when optional parameters are omitted, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information: the data scope, the source consistency, and the currency conventions.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some gaps: both parameters are optional, but the description does not say what happens when country or nationality are omitted, nor what the returned benchmark data looks like. It is adequate for most calls but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining currency conventions by country and tying the parameters to the published bands, which clarifies the intended use beyond the schema's enum-like examples.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Published monthly salary benchmarks for domestic workers in the Gulf, by country and worker nationality.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all cover different functions like agencies, workers, guides, and licence verification.

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 gives clear context: call this tool when salary benchmark bands for domestic workers in UAE or KSA are needed, broken down by country and nationality. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative choices, but the siblings serve distinct purposes, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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