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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: the 8 percent threshold bands, the 16-city factor and its fallback to national figures, the response contents (corridor, negotiation range), and the gross-only / aggregate-data caveat. The one gap is that it doesn't state how ambiguous job titles are resolved when no benchmark match exists.

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?

Three tight paragraphs: what it does, how the comparison works, and what it does not do. Front-loaded and every sentence carries information, though the mention of JobJump's website appears twice and could be trimmed.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it still previews the corridor and negotiation range and explains the threshold bands. Combined with the explicit scope limits (gross only, not contract advice), an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining how parameters feed the comparison: search_region only adjusts via a city factor for 16 cities and otherwise falls back nationally, and seniority should be passed 'when the user said it' rather than guessed. It largely repeats schema content on period multiplication and normalisation.

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 first sentence states a specific verb, resource and scope ('judge whether a gross salary offer in Germany is below, in or above the market') and ties it to a concrete reference point. It is clearly distinguishable from get_salary_benchmark (returns figures) and calculate_net_salary (net pay).

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 names the triggering situation explicitly: the user names an offer amount and asks whether it is fair, low, good, or how much to negotiate. It also routes the agent elsewhere for the adjacent need ('call calculate_net_salary with the offered amount for net pay').

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