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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it merely states 'Salary ranges' with no detail on return format, data source, or how location/country affect results. It doesn't mention whether it returns a single range or multiple data points, nor any defaults or side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded, which is positive, but it borders on under-specification. It could be more informative while remaining concise.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the tool has three parameters, so the description should clarify return values and behavior. It fails to explain what format the salary ranges come in or how the country/location filter is applied, leaving it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 already describes 'role' and 'location,' but the description adds no additional parameter context. The 'country' parameter is not documented in the description, leaving its semantics only inferable from the default value 'de.'

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 the tool provides salary ranges for a role and location, but uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling job-search tools by focusing on salary, but lacks a specific verb-value structure.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like job_search or job_trends. The description only defines what it contains, with no mention of preferred use cases or exclusions.

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