Salary Benchmark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that it's read-only. It adds behavioral details such as returning precomputed percentiles and career-ladder progression, but does not fully describe rate limits or authorization requirements beyond mentioning 'Pro tier'.

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 concise with two key parts: the action and use case examples. It front-loads the main verb and scope, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs, returns (percentiles, ranking, career ladder), and use cases. It covers all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds overall context (live market, career-ladder) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool compares a salary against a market slice and provides specific use case examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on salary benchmarking with percentiles and career ladder.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios (e.g., 'am I paid well?', 'what should I ask for?') and mentions it's a Pro tier tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like market_position.

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