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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive safety, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: the 12-month submission window, the free-tier ceiling listing what is NOT returned (other percentiles, sample size, level split, company/focus-area/funding filters), and the never-guess-a-slug rule. It stops short of describing the response shape or behavior when data is sparse, which is the remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 the definition, then alternatives, then limits, then slug rules — a sensible priority order with no filler. The "Free limit:" sentence restates the opening line almost verbatim before adding the exclusions, a minor redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is measured, the time window, currency, exclusions and slug prerequisites — enough to call it confidently. Missing edge-case behavior (empty results, sample-size thresholds) is the only shortfall.

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 earns above that by adding the canonical-slug contract and naming the specific resolver tools (search-job-families, search-locations, search-companies) plus the 'never guess a slug' rule, which is operational guidance the schema does not state.

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 precise verb and resource with full scope: median p50 yearly total compensation in USD, one job family, one location, all levels, last 12 months. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-location-stats and get-salaries-by-company-level, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

"This is the figure to quote for one location's pay" gives an affirmative use case, and the two sibling comparisons give explicit alternatives with the condition (longer window, per-company-by-level) that selects them. Prerequisite workflow (resolve slugs with the search tools first) is also stated.

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