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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior context: it uses SHRM/Payscale/Mercer data, produces a structured comparison with cost impact analysis, eligibility criteria, and duration benchmarks. No contradictions and no hidden side effects disclosed beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second explains outputs and ideal use case. No 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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, data sources, and use case. It does not describe the async option, but the schema handles that. Missing a mention of optional peerGroup is minor since schema documents it.

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 80%, and the schema itself thoroughly describes all parameters (companySize, industry, peerGroup, async, currentPolicy nested fields). The description only mentions 'company size, industry, and current policy details' at a high level, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('benchmark'), a clear resource ('sabbatical policies'), and data sources (SHRM, Payscale, Mercer). It is distinct from siblings like executive_comp_peer_benchmark, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly identifies the use case ('strategic HR planning and policy optimization') and target audience (CHROs). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternate tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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