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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—that results are scoped to the 'loaded trend set'—but does not disclose aggregation methodology, response structure, or any limitations. This is a reasonable contribution above the annotations.

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 one short sentence with no filler. The main action, resource, and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding. It is a model of economical writing.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the required input, and the scoping condition. The absence of an output schema makes the vague phrase 'salary signal aggregates' a minor gap, but the low complexity and clear annotations make it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema describes the single parameter 'title' with an example ('cloud engineer'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description repeats the term 'role title' but does not add meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('salary signal aggregates'), and clearly identifies the input ('role title'). It distinguishes itself from the many jobs_* siblings by focusing on salary signals, which no other sibling mentions. The phrase 'in the loaded trend set' further scopes the operation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many alternative jobs_* tools, such as jobs_profile or jobs_skill_trends. It states what it does but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate usage.

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