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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is updated monthly, the bands are the same ones published elsewhere on the site, currencies vary by country (AED vs SAR), and unsupported countries produce guide links rather than bands. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and dimensions, and the second adds provenance and currency details. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is largely complete: it states the source, update frequency, currencies, and the unsupported-country fallback. The only missing detail is behavior when called with no parameters or with only one parameter, but the phrase 'bands' plus the schema descriptions make the tool usable without that clarification.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the currency mapping (AED for UAE, SAR for Saudi Arabia), which reinforces the country parameter, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's own explanations of country and nationality slugs. It mostly restates what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource ('salary benchmarks for domestic workers in the Gulf') and the key dimensions ('by country and worker nationality'). The mention of 'published monthly' and the GCC context makes it distinct from sibling search and verification tools, so an agent can tell what this tool does at a glance.

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 intended use is implied: it is the tool for salary benchmark data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it over siblings such as search_knowledge or get_platform_guide, and no exclusion criteria. The only partial guidance is the edge case that unsupported GCC countries return guide links, which tells the agent when the tool is less useful.

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