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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses the return payload (salary range, monthly trend over the past year, and a salary page URL). It does not say what happens for an unknown job or slug, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second carries the critical input constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the currency, period, and locale are all specified. The only omission is error/empty-result behavior for an unrecognized job, which is minor for a simple one-parameter read.

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 single parameter is already documented as a name or slug with an example. The description adds genuinely new meaning beyond the schema — that titles must be Dutch — which is a semantic constraint an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 and resource — average monthly salary range in euros for a job in the Netherlands — with units, currency, and geography all stated. It is unmistakable against siblings like get-vacancy or get-employer, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get-job-description. Usage is only implied by the resource itself, though the closing note that job titles are Dutch is a useful input constraint that prevents a common misuse.

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