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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating the output is 'ranked vendors with rationale,' but it says nothing about ranking methodology, limits on results, or how empty/marginal matches are handled.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the trigger, then the output and parameter summary. It is tight and scannable. It loses a point only because the trailing required/optional sentence largely duplicates the schema rather than earning new information.

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 four-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, output shape and parameter roles adequately. No output schema exists, so the description's note about ranked vendors with rationale fills the gap; only edge-case behavior and sibling disambiguation are missing.

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% and both enums are fully enumerated in the schema, so the parameters are already self-documenting. The description's 'Required: industry. Optional: region, role focus.' merely restates the schema and adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Recommend the best-fit compensation surveys given a hiring/benchmarking context,' and adds that it returns 'ranked vendors with rationale.' It is clear what the tool produces, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the close sibling find_surveys_for_position, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks what survey should I use for [situation]?' That is a concrete, quotable condition. However, it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition, which matters given the overlapping find_surveys_for_position and list_vendors_by_industry siblings.

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