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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: what each mode returns and the caveat that salary signals come only from 'listings that publish pay', which warns the agent about partial data.

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 sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then the no-arg mode, then the filtered mode. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover safety. The description covers both invocation modes and output content; the only gap is that the optional workplace_type filter is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents query, location, and workplace_type with examples. The description reinforces query/location semantics (role, city) and the no-arg default but never mentions workplace_type, so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 precise verb and resource ('Returns aggregate job-market statistics') and immediately clarifies the two operating modes (full indexed market vs. filtered slice). It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_jobs, which returns individual listings rather than aggregates.

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 explicitly says when to call with no args and when to pass query/location, with a concrete example ('product managers in San Francisco'). It does not name alternative tools (e.g. search_jobs) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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