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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context about adjusting for cost-of-living and tax differentials and lists expected outputs, but it does not go into data sources, limitations, or rate limits. This is similar to moderate-added-value examples, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence is high-value, and the second and third sentences summarize inputs and outputs. The keywords sentence is somewhat redundant but could aid searchability; overall, it is efficient without excessive fluff.

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?

Given the presence of a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, and domain keywords. It does not explain prerequisites or alternatives, but the combination of schema, annotations, and description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description says 'salary range' while the schema defines a single 'baseSalary' number, which is a misleading mismatch. It also does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond restating inputs, so the baseline is reduced due to the inconsistency.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Compares local compensation benchmarks against HQ standards for CHROs, adjusting for cost-of-living and tax differentials.' It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like global_salary_inflation_adjuster or executive_comp_peer_benchmark by focusing on geographic pay equity and tax/COL adjustments.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for CHROs comparing local vs HQ compensation with COL/tax adjustments) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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