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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits the schema cannot express — default year resolution, that the no-code mode returns every kabupaten/kota in a single response, and that only entries with a 'confirmed figure' are included. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown codes or what a returned record contains.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the two-sentence structure is dense with no filler. The second sentence is overloaded with three conditional clauses, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description reasonably covers scoping, defaults, and result cardinality, but leaves the shape of a result (which fields, units, any name alongside the wage) entirely unstated. Adequate to make the call, incomplete for interpreting the response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents year defaults, the code pattern, and the province_code dependency. The description largely restates those defaults rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so 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 states a specific resource — 'Regency or city minimum wage (UMK) for one year' — with the time scope explicit, which implicitly separates it from the history-flavored sibling get_umk_history and from the province-level get_ump. It does not, however, name any sibling directly, so an agent gets no explicit disambiguation.

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?

It clearly branches on the controlling parameter: supply regency_code for a single kabupaten/kota, omit it to enumerate all, with province_code as an optional filter and 'used only when regency_code is omitted'. That is real when-to-use guidance for the two main modes, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_ump or get_umk_history.

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