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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the data source and cost but does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. Key behavioral traits like offset/limit usage and response format are omitted.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a price tag, highly concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose and data details. Every word adds value, 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?

With 7 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too brief to fully enable correct tool usage. It lacks information on required combinations, parameter formatting, and expected output structure.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for 7 parameters. The description hints at occupation_code (SOC) and area_type/area_code (national/state/metro) but does not explain year, limit, offset, or state. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing healthcare wage benchmarks by SOC occupation and area, including specific statistics (median, mean, percentiles) and employment data. It answers the question 'what does this role pay in this market?' and distinguishes from sibling tools like carecompare or hcris, which cover different healthcare domains.

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 usage for wage data queries but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Given the sibling tools cover distinct areas (dialysis, hospitals, etc.), the context is clear enough for selection, though explicit exclusions would improve guidance.

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