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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context (median, umowa o pracę and B2B) but says nothing about result ordering, whether both rankings are always returned, or pagination behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core content. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant but serves a mixed-language audience without bloating the text.

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 simple read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description conveys the content scope well enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain around return shape and how the two rankings are combined.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'limit' with its default and range. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 the resource precisely: best-paid occupations (both employment contract and B2B, median) and most in-demand occupations in Poland. This distinguishes it from get_salary and compare_occupations, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly. Clear verb-less but unambiguous purpose.

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 description implies usage (get rankings of pay/demand) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings like compare_occupations or get_salary. The distinction is inferable from content, not stated.

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