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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a free-tier limit that returns only base salary and total compensation, and the USD normalization rule vs. originalCurrency. It could still clarify what happens when a UUID is unknown or the row is out of plan scope.

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?

The return fields are front-loaded, followed by currency semantics and the free-tier caveat, so the most decision-relevant content comes first. The closing 'REQUIRED arguments: uuid' sentence is pure redundancy against the schema and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape — and it does, field by field, plus the currency semantics an agent would otherwise misread. Combined with the free-tier limitation and the uuid provenance, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by telling the agent where the uuid comes from (a search-raw-data-points row) rather than leaving the format unexplained. 'REQUIRED arguments: uuid' merely restates the schema's required array.

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 ('Get a single salary submission by its UUID') and enumerates exactly what comes back: company, title, level, location, YoE, offer date, base and total comp. That field list clearly separates it from the aggregate siblings like get-salary-percentiles and get-salaries-by-company-level.

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?

'Use the uuid from a search-raw-data-points row' explicitly routes the agent to the sibling that produces the required identifier, which is the main usage decision for a by-id lookup. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g. when to prefer search-raw-data-points instead of this call), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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