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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does, disclosing the authoritative data source (real BLS OEWS), the specific percentiles returned, and that a cost-of-living index accompanies the result. It still omits what happens on no-match or ambiguous occupation names, so it is not exhaustive.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the resource and returned fields, the second gives the use case. No filler, and the example phrasings make the intent immediately scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey returns — and it does, naming the percentile set and the COL index. For a zero-required-parameter lookup tool this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (no results, ambiguous job names) is left unspecified.

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 all three parameters (job, city, state) are already documented with partial-match and format hints. The description reinforces that city/state are optional narrowing filters, but adds no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource: returns BLS OEWS annual wage percentiles (10th/25th/median/75th/90th) for an occupation, optionally scoped to metro/state, plus the cost-of-living index. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_take_home_pay or compare_cost_of_living purely from the wording.

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?

Provides concrete use cases ('what does a nurse earn in Chicago', 'am I underpaid') and frames the value as sourced rather than estimated, which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It does not, however, explicitly exclude or route away from siblings such as get_take_home_pay (net pay) or compare_cost_of_living, so the boundary is inferable rather than stated.

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