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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses data provenance and source coverage per period (governor decree vs BPS table, year ranges), which is genuine lineage information, but it omits return shape, units/currency, and any auth or rate-limit behavior for a read operation.

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 first sentence is tight, front-loaded and does the real work. The second sentence is a dense footnote about per-year citation sources that most invocations do not need, which dilutes an otherwise efficient definition.

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 should say more about what a result row contains (province code, name, value, currency) and how multi-province results are returned. As written it is adequate for a simple two-optional-param lookup but leaves the return contract entirely unspecified.

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 already documented, but the description adds the consequence of omission ('all provinces or one province') beyond the schema's terse 'optional' for province_code. That extra semantics justifies a step above the baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific resource (Provincial minimum wage / UMP), the scope (one year, all provinces or one province) and the default (newest loaded). However, it never differentiates itself from the closely related siblings get_umk, get_umk_history and get_ump_history, so an agent must infer that 'provincial' means this is the province-level series rather than the city-level one.

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?

States the default behavior (omit year for the newest loaded) and the all-vs-one-province scope, which implies usage. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to pick this over get_ump_history or get_umk, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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