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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the 'SENSITIVE' marker flagging that this exposes compensation data, plus the underlying endpoint path for traceability. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about pagination defaults or permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, and the most consequential information (SENSITIVE) is front-loaded before the resource description and endpoint. Everything present earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the salient returned fields, and pagination is fully covered in the schema. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around permissions and result ordering.

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% and all three parameters are documented in-schema, including the next_page pagination pattern. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair (salary history) scoped to 'one team member' and enumerates the returned fields (job title, pay rate, currency, effective date), so an agent can distinguish it from the company-wide list_salaries sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one team member' signals single-member lookup vs. the company-wide list_salaries, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The SENSITIVE flag hints at caution without spelling out any usage condition.

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