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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: figures are PayScale's own estimates, results are US-only annual USD, and each successful call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 with no charge on failure — pricing/rate context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then source, input format, and pricing; every sentence carries information. The payment clause is slightly dense but material to invocation, so it 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?

With an output schema present and a single fully documented parameter, the description supplies everything the remaining gaps require: data source, currency and annual basis, US scope, input format, and per-call cost. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `job` parameter is already documented in the schema with the same Software_Engineer example. The description reinforces the format constraint (match PayScale's URL spelling) but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: median pay for a job title from PayScale's public salary research page, returning annual USD compensation plus related career-path roles. That clearly separates it from the many sibling job-listing tools, which return postings rather than salary benchmarks.

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 gives clear context for use (a US salary lookup using PayScale's published estimates) and implicitly scopes out non-salary or non-US needs, but it never explicitly names an alternative or states when NOT to call it versus listing tools like jobs_glassdoor.

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