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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive, and the description layers on non-obvious behavior: alternate names are included per level, results are ordered by seniority, and an empty list with an explanation is returned when no level structure is known. It also discloses a free-tier data limit (full detail for Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Meta/Apple, names only elsewhere), which materially affects result interpretation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then sequencing, then limits, then slug discipline — dense and mostly waste-free. Minor slack: the trailing 'REQUIRED arguments: companySlug, jobFamilySlug' restates the schema, and the locationSlug/countrySlug mention is noise for a 2-parameter tool.

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 two-parameter read with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, return shape (names plus alternates), empty-result behavior, and data-coverage limits. Nothing needed to call or interpret it 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by mandating canonical slugs and pointing at the resolver tools rather than allowing name input. It loses a point for referencing locationSlug and countrySlug, which are not parameters of this tool.

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 and resource (internal level names per job family, ordered by seniority) and gives concrete examples of the naming convention it returns. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get-salaries-by-company-level, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this FIRST when a question names a specific level at a specific company... then call get-salaries-by-company-level,' including a worked example query. It also names the prerequisite resolution tools (search-job-families, search-locations, search-companies) and forbids guessing slugs.

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