Get Role Pricing

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that rates are all-inclusive, non-binding, and not a quote, which shapes how the agent should present results.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines output semantics, gives user-style queries, routes to alternatives, adds exclusion guidance, and provides examples and hints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema, the description is complete: it states the exact inputs, the meaning of the returned range, the non-binding caveat, and alternative tools for related tasks.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters with names and slug examples. The description adds value beyond the schema with call examples and a useful pricing hint: 'Brand Ambassadors floor at $40/hour in every market.' This helps agents choose valid parameter values.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the all-inclusive hourly rate range for a specific role in a specific city.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_availability and plan_staffing through question examples and explicit exclusions.

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 when-to-use guidance with natural language examples, and explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'DO NOT use for availability or dates (use check_availability)' and 'For a multi-role budget, use plan_staffing.' This leaves little ambiguity about tool routing.

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