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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the hybrid literal + embedding matching strategy and the ranking behavior that demotes niche cuts behind broad-coverage surveys, which materially shapes result interpretation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded on what the tool finds and immediately followed by the semantic-matching behavior and ranking rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 usefully explains that results are ranked surveys with broad-coverage ones first, which compensates for the missing return documentation. It is largely complete for a two-parameter read tool, though it omits any hint of result count limits or empty-result behavior.

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%, so both the free-text 'position' input and the limit bounds (1-20, default 5) are already documented in structured fields. The description reinforces that abbreviations and paraphrases are fine for 'position' but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('find compensation surveys') and scopes it to a job title, with concrete examples. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the overlapping sibling recommend_surveys, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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 implies when to use it ('benchmark a specific job title or position') and notes that abbreviations and paraphrases are acceptable input. However, it gives no when-not guidance and does not name or defer to any alternative such as recommend_surveys, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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