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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: pay is derived from posted hourly rates excluding shift differentials and bonuses, and a market rate is reported only where at least three employers post one. That sample-size threshold is meaningful disclosure the annotations do not provide.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded before the mode enumeration. It earns most of its length, though the colon-and-semicolon construction packs four distinct behaviors into one long clause chain.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: median plus typical range, top employers, employer pay overall and by kind, and the minimum-employer threshold. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with enums and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what each parameter combination actually produces, clarifying the semantics of combining kind and employer.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('What healthcare jobs post as pay today') and immediately scopes the measurement basis to stated hourly rates before differentials and bonuses. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_healthcare_employer or get_healthcare_job_market because it is the pay-rate aggregator.

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 enumerates the four invocation modes (no args, kind only, employer only, both) and explains what each returns, which is effectively when-to-use guidance. It also routes the agent to list_healthcare_employers for slug lookup, but never explicitly names or excludes the other sibling tools.

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