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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and outputs, but omits critical behavior details such as whether the operation is read-only, how salaries are aggregated (e.g., median vs average), potential limitations, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Compare', states the scope ('across cities for a role'), and specifies the outputs. Every phrase adds value with zero 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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It tells the user the tool compares job count and salaries, but does not clarify the return structure (e.g., per city breakdown), the default country behavior, or any prerequisites. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 descriptions cover 2 of 3 parameters (query and locations, both adequately described). The tool-level description reinforces these mappings (role → query, cities → locations) but adds no new meaning. The 'country' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description; given 67% coverage, the description should have compensated for this gap but does not.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' and clearly defines the resource: 'job markets across cities for a role', with explicit outputs 'job count and salaries'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like job_search (single search) and salary_insights (salaries only), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to compare job markets across multiple cities for a specific role. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5 but is still clearly actionable.

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