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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: dataset scale (392 systems / 3,799 hospitals) and a freshness date (October 2026), which tells the agent the data vintage. It does not disclose return shape or whether a fuzzy match yields multiple systems.

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 tight sentences with the data content front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical counts are slightly dense but each clause carries information about scope or currency.

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 some burden for describing what comes back, yet it never states the response shape (single system vs. list of matches, pay bands per role). It compensates with scope and update-date metadata, but a caller still cannot predict the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'system' parameter is already fully documented with fuzzy-match examples. The description's 'Search by system name' only restates the schema and adds no format or matching semantics beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (hourly pay ranges for nursing, allied health, imaging, NP/PA) and the retrieval action (search by system name) for a US hospital system. It is easily distinguished from siblings search_jobs and search_travel_contracts by domain, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered. 'Search by system name' describes how to invoke the tool, not the conditions under which an agent should pick it over search_jobs or search_travel_contracts, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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