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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds useful context by stating the tool returns exactly one jurisdiction's record and that there are 113 known jurisdictions, but it does not disclose additional behavioral caveats such as error behavior or lookups for unknown slugs.

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 two sentences, front-loads the essential return contents, and then provides useful scoping examples. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with output schema available and safe annotations. The description covers what the tool returns, its single-input semantics, and the known slug space, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema already documents the 'slug' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by providing multiple concrete slug examples (federal, alaska, alabama, arkansas) and confirming a bounded set of 113 jurisdictions, which helps the agent infer valid slug format.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource: one tracked jurisdiction's current minimum-wage record, including rate, effective date, validation status, and next scheduled step. It also gives the scope (113 known jurisdictions) and concrete examples, making it easy to distinguish from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 the tool's use case clearly: call it when you need the current minimum-wage details for a single jurisdiction identified by slug. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is necessary.

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