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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's return-value enumeration (P10–P90, mean, min, max, sector/market-cap breakdowns) largely duplicates the existing output schema rather than adding new behavioral context such as data recency or coverage caveats. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then returns, then valid values, then usage triggers. The return-value sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, but the overall structure is tight and every clause is actionable.

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 a complete schema, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description needn't explain return shape; it correctly focuses on scope and trigger conditions. The one gap is sibling disambiguation against get_remuneration_benchmarks and get_executive_compensation, which would be valuable in a tool set this crowded.

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% and every parameter (role, year, sector, market_cap) is documented in the schema itself. The description restates the valid role list and market-cap tiers, which mirrors rather than extends the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get compensation percentile benchmarking') plus an explicit scope ('across all NZX companies') and a concrete role set, which distinguishes it from a single-company tool like get_executive_compensation. However, it never names or differentiates from its very close sibling get_remuneration_benchmarks, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The final sentence gives clear triggering contexts ('pay benchmarks, market rates, how much CEOs/CFOs earn, or whether a company overpays vs peers'). There are no when-not conditions and no explicit routing to alternative tools such as get_remuneration_benchmarks or get_executive_compensation, so the guidance stops short of 5.

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