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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' strongly implies a safe read-only lookup and the mention of 'each country's currency' adds a hint about returned content, but it says nothing about result format, whether the list is static, or how codes should be used downstream.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the returned entities (country codes, sector codes) and the extra field (currency) with zero filler. Nothing is redundant.

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 must describe the return content, and it does name the three things returned (country codes, sector codes, currencies). It is nearly complete for such a simple tool, though it omits the shape/grouping of the response.

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 the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless enumeration with no filtering or pagination options.

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 verb and resource: it lists country codes and sector codes supported by the salary benchmarks, plus their currencies. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling benchmark/comparison tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'supported by the salary benchmarks' implies this is the discovery/reference tool to consult before calling get_salary_benchmark or compare_salary, but that inference is left to the agent rather than stated.

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