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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the comparison basis (country cap plus peer median), the sampling bound (up to 20 experts), and the advisory/non-binding nature of the result. It stops short of saying what happens if no rate is set or how the comparison is presented.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The comparison mechanics come first and the interpretive caveat second, so the agent gets the essential semantics immediately.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call and interpret it. The only real gap is prerequisite behavior — e.g., what is returned when the caller has no rate set or an industry that yields no peers.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. Implicit inputs (the caller's own rate, country, and industry) are drawn from the profile, which the description hints at by phrasing everything as 'your rate' and 'your industry'.

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 operation — comparing the caller's rate against their country cap and the median public rate of up to 20 listed experts in their industry. The scope qualifiers (country cap, industry, sample size) make it unmistakable against siblings like get_country_rate_caps or update_rate, which return raw caps or mutate the rate.

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 line 'It is a hint, not a required price' tells the agent how to treat the output, which is useful usage framing. However, there is no explicit when-to-call guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_country_rate_caps for the raw cap or update_rate to act on the suggestion — the agent must infer the decision context.

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