market_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the aggregate nature and specifies the exact computed metrics: salary percentiles, remote share, experience breakdown, and top employers. Minor gaps like data freshness or source are not addressed, but they are not critical for this read-style aggregate tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The output summary is front-loaded and the usage caveat is placed after, making it easy to scan and act on.

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?

The description is informative for an aggregate tool and there is an output schema to cover return shapes. However, the total absence of parameter semantics and the lack of clarification about what the top-10 employers are ranked by leaves invocation partially underspecified.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. It only says 'by filter' without explaining the meaning or format of query, area_id, or published_within_days. An agent cannot reliably construct filter values from this definition alone.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns an aggregated market snapshot by filter, with vacancy count, salary percentiles (p25/p50/p75), remote share, experience breakdown, and top-10 employers. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from tools that return specific vacancy lists.

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 gives clear when-to-use examples ('what are current salaries', 'is there much remote work') and an explicit when-not-to-use case: not for a list of specific vacancies. It does not name a specific sibling tool like search_vacancies, which keeps it just shy of full alternative guidance.

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