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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source ('jobs that disclosed pay in the live index'), the available percentile breakdown, the optional seniority filtering, and the no-arguments behavior that lists every role and its median. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not describe the exact response shape.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: content, intended use case, and no-argument behavior are all front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information, and the tool remains compact.

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 simple two-optional-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the data source, the returned statistic set, the optional seniority filter, and the default listing behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying the output shape, but the described percentiles and role-list behavior are enough for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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 slightly reinforces the 'optional seniority breakdown' and no-args behavior, but those concepts already appear in the parameter descriptions, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 resource (remote salary percentiles per role), states the exact statistics and currency (p25/median/p75 USD), and even gives the canonical use case phrase ('what does a remote X earn?'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search/facet/job tools because it is the only one about pay ranges.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Use this to answer...') and what calling with no arguments does. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like search_jobs or job_facets, but the salary-specific purpose makes the intended context unambiguous.

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