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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns ranked vendors with rationale') and mentions required/optional parameters, but does not discuss safety (e.g., read-only nature), data sources, or limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage trigger, third summarizes parameters. No redundancy, front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 4 documented parameters and no output schema. The description provides purpose, when to use, return format, and required/optional parameters. It does not explain how ranked vendors are ordered or any underlying logic, but this is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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% with descriptions for every parameter. The description only restates what is already in the schema (required industry, optional region/role_focus) and adds no extra semantic value, earning the baseline score of 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Recommend the best-fit compensation surveys given a hiring/benchmarking context.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_vendors_by_industry or find_surveys_for_position by focusing on best-fit recommendations with ranked vendors.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user asks "what survey should I use for [situation]?"' This gives a clear trigger. However, it does not mention when not to use or directly reference alternatives, which keeps it a step below a perfect score.

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