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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world lookup. The description adds useful context beyond them: it states the cost (2 credits) and lists what the response includes (tipped wages, effective rate as the higher of state or federal, and historical federal data). It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but for a small lookup tool that is a minor omission.

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 definition is dense and front-loads the most important facts: what data is provided, then what is included, then the cost. The only waste is the redundant "Minimum Wage: Minimum Wage" opening, which repeats the title without adding meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The schema fully documents the two parameters, and the description adds cost and content coverage. The only meaningful gap for an agent is how the optional year parameter interacts with the per-state and federal data.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and that alone justifies the baseline score of 3. The description adds some interpretive value, because it explains that effective rates mean the higher of state or federal, which helps the agent understand the output. It does not clarify how the optional year parameter changes the scope of the returned state data.

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 definition uses a specific verb ("provides") and a precise resource ("current minimum wage rates"), and it names the scope: all US states plus the federal minimum, including tipped minimums and effective rates. That is enough detail for an agent to distinguish the tool from other financial or statistical tools. However, it never points to a related sibling or explains its boundary against tools like CostofLiving or CPIInflation.

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 implies when the tool is useful (looking up minimum wage for a state and/or year), but it gives no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative routes. The presence of an optional year field suggests historical lookups are supported, yet the description does not tell the agent how the historical data relates to the two parameters.

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