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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the data source (US Department of Labor disclosure data), the specific visa categories, the returned statistics, and a privacy note that named contacts are excluded.

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 reasonably front-loaded, leading with the resource and example queries before the data details. It is slightly redundant, restating the title phrase and adding a fragment ('Offered wages on filings, a guide to pay at that employer') that could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, listing the count of filings, median and typical range, and common job titles with median wage. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it omits pagination or result-size behavior.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples in the schema. The description reinforces the query intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (wages US employers offered on certified H-1B/H-1B1/E-3 labour condition applications) and scope, distinguishing it from a generic salary lookup. It does not name sibling alternatives like check_salary or company_lookup, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives concrete use cases ("what does Google pay software engineers?", "how much does Infosys pay on H-1B?") that clearly indicate when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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