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

Because annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, the description is not burdened with the safety profile, but it still adds real context: currency (USD), the percentile spread, the report period, and the inclusion of open-vacancy and company counts. It does not address whether ranks are matched exactly or case-insensitively, what happens for ranks with no data, or the freshness of the 'open now' count, which are the behavioral details an agent would actually need.

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 definition leads with the core meaning and then enumerates the payload in a single dense clause; the closing sentence about employer offers versus seafarer expectations earns its place as a disambiguation. It is slightly list-heavy and could be trimmed, but nothing is padded.

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 needs to explain what comes back, and it does so thoroughly: median, IQR, sample sizes of vacancies and companies, typical contract, report period, and current open demand. The main remaining gap is edge-case behavior (unknown rank, insufficient sample sizes) and rank-string normalization, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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?

There is only one parameter, rank, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with illustrative examples ("Chief Engineer", "Master", "AB"). The description refers to the rank but adds no naming conventions, accepted synonyms, or normalization rules beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 gives a precise resource and scope for the tool: employer-offered pay statistics for a given rank, broken down by median, IQR, contract type, report period, and current open-demand numbers. That scope is clearly distinct from vacancy-lookup siblings like get_vacancy or search_vacancies, but the description never names or contrasts them, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the opening clause (you call it to see what employers offer a rank), and the closing sentence usefully warns that these are employer offers rather than seafarer expectations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no stated alternative such as a vacancy-search tool for individual postings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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