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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about output composition (typical yearly range, middle figure, average advertised) and source (current job adverts), plus the key distinction that figures are advertised pay rather than offers. It stops short of explaining data freshness or geographic coverage limits.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose before examples and output details. The brand repetition and fragmented sentences are minor inefficiencies, but most content earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies enough output semantics and source context despite having no output schema. An agent can call it correctly without missing critical information.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description's examples loosely map to the what and where parameters, but it adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema, and the country parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 resource and outcome: what a job pays in a place, with clear examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings through the salary-lookup focus, even without naming alternatives.

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 example queries clearly imply when to use this tool, such as checking pay for a role in a location. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like compare_jobs or search_jobs, nor does it state when not to use it.

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