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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that the numbers are dated and stable for citation, but it omits freshness cadence, update timing, and return format details.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no filler. 'Dated aggregate numbers' establishes the core resource immediately, and 'Stable facts for citation' adds relevant usage context without bloat.

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 a parameterless aggregate tool with rich safety annotations and no output schema, the description states what metrics are included and that the data is intended for citation. It still leaves output shape and temporal granularity unspecified, so it is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a substantive concern. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools baseline at 4 when the schema is complete and the description does not need to explain inputs.

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 identifies the resource as dated aggregate market numbers and enumerates the included metrics: open roles, organizations, and distribution by category/mode/level. It distinguishes itself from job-search and list-oriented siblings by emphasizing aggregates, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It implies a citation/aggregate use case with 'Stable facts for citation', but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not route the agent toward or away from siblings such as search_jobs, diff_since, or list_orgs.

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