get_benchmark

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

The description declares 'Pure deterministic lookup — no network, auth, or side effects,' which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). There is no contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral traits. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters with enums, full annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It conveys purpose, usage, return values, and safety, leaving no gaps for an AI agent.

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% with detailed enum descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it looks up published benchmark rates for a business function and industry, and lists the specific return fields: revenue/cost ranges, industry multiplier, value drivers, and cited source. It also distinguishes this tool from score_initiative.

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 provides clear guidance: use when the caller wants raw rates and multiplier without running a four-pillar verdict; for an initiative-level Accelerate/Fix/Stop call, use score_initiative instead. This explicitly states when to use and when not to use, along with the alternative.

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