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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: a 2-year lookback window that differs from the sibling's 12 months, a result cap of 10, USD currency, and the absence of company/level filters. It is docked slightly because the "Free limit:" sentence is garbled/truncated and the slug list references companySlug, which is not a parameter of this tool and could mislead an agent about available filters.

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-loads the core purpose well, but the middle section is dense and repeats itself (ranking/window explained twice), and the "Free limit:" fragment is an incomplete sentence that reads as a copy-paste error. The companySlug mention is also dead weight 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 simple two-parameter read with readOnly annotations and no output schema, the description covers ranking metric, time window, currency, result cap and slug prerequisites — enough to call it correctly. Absent output schema, it partially compensates by saying what comes back (up to 10 locations with their median).

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 goes further by insisting both parameters are required, that they be canonical slugs resolved via search tools rather than guessed, and that countrySlug must be a country (cities/metros/states rejected, which the schema also states). The stray companySlug reference is the only noise.

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?

Specific verb and resource: top-paying locations for a job family within one country, ranked by p50 median yearly total comp in USD over the last 2 years, capped at 10 results. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get-salary-percentiles, 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?

States the intended use ("compare where a role pays most inside a country") and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ("quote get-salary-percentiles for one location's pay"). It also gives a prerequisite workflow: resolve names with search-job-families / search-locations / search-companies and never guess a slug.

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