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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the geographic/contract/experience scoping, and says nothing about response shape, whether a/b must be resolved via search_occupations, or error behavior when a name is ambiguous.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison action and the scoping detail in parentheses. The Polish/English duplication costs some space but is a deliberate bilingual accessibility choice rather than padding.

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 read-only, closed-world comparison tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essentials. It is thin on the one thing the schema cannot express for a 'compare' tool: what the side-by-side result actually contains, which matters since no output schema exists.

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%, with both enum parameters fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical about city/contract/experience merely restates the optional parameters without adding format or default semantics beyond what the schema already gives.

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 (compare) and resource (salaries of two occupations), with a clear scope of 'two occupations in Poland' that separates it from the single-salary sibling get_salary. It never names get_salary or search_occupations, however, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 states the scoping options (whole country or a city, optionally contract and experience), which implies when this tool applies, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_salary or search_occupations and no prerequisite telling the agent to resolve occupation IDs first.

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