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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needs to add disclosure beyond that. 'Active jobs' and 'from employer-published ranges' are genuinely useful caveats implying coverage gaps where employers don't publish pay, but nothing is said about aggregation behavior, minimum sample sizes, or how currencies are grouped in the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the scoping/source caveats after; no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. But with 11 optional parameters and a percentage-style aggregation, the description leaves unclear how filters combine (AND vs OR, especially for exclude and regions) and what 'percentiles' means in the payload, which is a real gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 64%, and several parameters (remote, countries, seniority, role_family, posted_within_days, currency beyond 'per currency') carry no description in the schema. The description says only 'matching the filters' and 'per currency', adding essentially no meaning over the structured fields where the burden should fall on it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (yearly salary percentiles) and constrains scope to active jobs matching the filters, plus the data source (employer-published ranges). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling market_overview, which likely reports similar aggregate pay data, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite the presence of market_overview, search_jobs and similar_jobs which an agent could reasonably confuse with this. The only hint is the phrase 'matching the filters', which implies usage but doesn't route the agent.

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