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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already provided, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the output (medians and bands), includes a concrete example (ICU median $95/hr, p75 $108/hr), and mentions the data source (BLS and Stratalize SIA-style composite). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, front-loaded with the usage guidance, and packs useful details into a compact format. The example and source attribution add value without unnecessary filler, though the long dash-separated sentence could be slightly easier to parse.

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, read-only tool with annotations and two parameters, the description covers the key elements: when to use, what it returns, an example, and the data source. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'medians and bands' gives sufficient context, though it doesn't detail the exact response structure.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description partially compensates by mentioning 'by specialty and state' and providing an example using 'ICU' and 'Illinois'. However, it doesn't clarify exact input formats (e.g., state code vs full name), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns bill-rate medians and bands by specialty and state' and specifically for travel nurse contract benchmarking. It uses a specific verb ('benchmarking') and resource (travel nurse rates), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on travel nurse rates and negotiation use case.

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 opens with explicit usage guidance: 'Use when benchmarking travel nurse contract rates or negotiating with a staffing agency.' It provides clear context for when to apply the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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