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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real operational context on top: figures are computed directly from the database rather than estimated, currencies are never mixed, the response carries the date of the figures and the exact method, and hourly/monthly rates are excluded. That is substantive disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the population and metrics come first, then filters, then methodology. Most sentences earn their place, though the closing 'Computed directly from the database, not an estimate' partially overlaps with the earlier 'live Level listings' framing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return payload (count, median, 25th/75th percentile of range midpoints, date of figures, method). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it spells out the AI level scale (1 = Little AI through 4 = Builds AI) where the schema only says '1 to 4', and confirms the default currency is USD and that only one currency is counted at a time.

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 names a specific verb+resource (salary statistics over Level listings) and precisely bounds the population (only listings that publish a yearly salary range, excluding hourly and monthly rates). It is highly self-contained, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling market_stats tool, which is the most likely source of confusion.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the description explains which listings are counted and which filters exist, so an agent can infer when the tool applies. However, it never says when to choose this over market_stats or search_jobs, and no exclusion or alternative is named.

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