Market Position

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

The description discloses the scoring formula (weights), the output fields, and the constraint that it is a Pro-tier feature. Annotations only indicate read-only, so the description adds essential behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details the formula, and the third lists output fields and usage. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (score, matchingJobs, salaryMedian, etc.) and the computation logic. It also covers the input (authenticated user) and access tier. This is complete for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description cannot add parameter-specific info, but it does mention the implicit input (authenticated user). This adds marginal value, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool computes a market position score (0-100) with a specific verb 'compute'. The weighted components are listed, making the purpose unambiguous. Among 22 siblings, no other tool computes this exact metric, so it is well-distinguished.

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 explicit example queries ('how do I stack up against the market?', 'what's my market position right now?') that indicate when to use the tool. Although it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the tool's unique purpose makes this sufficient.

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