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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the nature of the returned data (units, period, source, confidence, comparability qualifications), but omits details such as behavior when no evidence exists, error conditions, or whether authentication/rate limits apply. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then concisely lists the return components. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers both the input requirement (occupation and geography) and the output components (units, period, source, confidence, comparability). It lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not mention edge cases, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (noc and province) at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'for an occupation and geography' loosely maps to these parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource 'wage evidence', while also listing the key return components (units, period, source, confidence, comparability). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'get_wages', which weakens distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wages' or 'get_evidence'. The description only states that it retrieves wage evidence for an occupation and geography, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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