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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled; the description goes beyond that with the 15-role minimum reporting threshold, the 7-day window, the explicit warning that figures are advertised ranges rather than offers or market averages, and a note that employer text is treated as untrusted data — all behavior an agent could not infer from 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?

The core purpose and caveats are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (thresholds, combinations, disclaimers). It is a single very long run-on sentence, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is little genuinely expendable content.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns and does so: counts, medians, interquartile bounds, level breakdowns, the sparse-data fallback, the linked source page, and the date window. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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% and both enums are described, so the structured data already documents each parameter individually. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the three parameters combine and what page each combination corresponds to, though it does not add format guidance for the free-text skill parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: yearly salary ranges posted by employers, summarised like RoleWeek's salary pages, over the last 7 days. It then enumerates the exact statistics returned (count with ranges, median bottom/top, middle half, by-level splits), which is far more precise than the title alone and distinguishes it from search_jobs or weekly_summary.

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?

It gives explicit input-combination rules: role_family or skill but not both, role+metro maps to the city/role page, metro alone covers all developer roles there, skill alone covers every city, and no argument ranks cities. It also states the fallback behavior when fewer than 15 roles report a range, so an agent knows what to expect before calling.

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