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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying data sources (OECD, IMF, World Bank) and output content (data sources and warnings). Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not contradict them instead, it enriches the behavioral understanding. Score 4 because it provides useful additional context.

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 description is concise with only three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the core action and target users, then briefly lists inputs and outputs. No unnecessary words, making it easy to read and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description's high-level mention of 'inflation-adjusted salary with data sources and warnings' is sufficient. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the description does not explain when to use the 'async' parameter, which is a minor gap for completeness. Overall, the description is fairly complete for a read-only, idempotent tool.

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 20% (only the 'async' parameter has a description). The description mentions 'country codes, base salary, and reference year' as inputs, adding some meaning beyond the schema for these required parameters. However, it does not explain 'targetYear' or the 'async' parameter's purpose (though async is described in schema). The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but not fully, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool adjusts salary benchmarks for local inflation using OECD, IMF, and World Bank data, and is designed for CHROs to normalize compensation across regions. The verb 'adjusts' combined with the specific resource 'salary benchmarks' makes the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like comp_benchmark_geo_delta, so it loses a point.

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?

The description provides context about intended users (CHROs) and the goal (normalize compensation across regions), which implies when to use. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use or explicit alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned, so the usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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