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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing output semantics: earnings are a lowest-to-highest range across publishing schools (never a computed median), six-digit majors draw earnings from their four-digit series and label them series-level, and every column is complete or names the unpublished figure. This is substantial behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the core question, then packs output-semantics detail into dense, purposeful sentences. Slightly heavy, but nearly every clause carries information about how figures are produced, so little is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not restate return values, yet it usefully explains the range/series conventions behind them. Coverage of constraints and caveats is strong; the main gap is guidance on selecting this tool over sibling comparison or lookup tools.

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 schema already documents majors, level, and state. The description only reinforces the 2-5 majors and single-level constraints and adds nothing about the optional state parameter's role beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (compare) and resource (majors) and enumerates exactly what is compared: definition, schools, O*NET jobs/outlook, and 1/5-year earnings with debt. The scope is clear and distinguishable from the school-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to route against. Strong but not maximally differentiated from sibling compare tools.

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 constraints (two to five majors, single level) imply the comparison use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as find_my_major. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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