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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior beyond them: the 5-10% coverage bias, the caution on small samples, and that sample size is returned per level. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 sentences, no waste, and the defining scope plus the sample-bias caveat are both front-loaded before the filtering detail. Every clause carries information.

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?

For an 11-parameter stats tool, the description supplies the critical interpretive context (only salaried listings count, samples may be tiny, sample size is returned). Annotations cover safety and an output schema covers return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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 explains every one of the 11 parameters, including the enums and the min_salary_usd caveat. The description names a subset of filters (country, remote, discipline, keywords) but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 resource and output (median and quartile posted salary by seniority level) with a clear scope, so an agent can tell it produces salary statistics rather than raw listings. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, hiring_snapshot, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 implied: use it to obtain salary distributions, with the caveat that only 5-10% of listings qualify. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_jobs / hiring_snapshot when...' guidance, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the correct tool boundary.

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