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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – it returns all years, i.e. no year filter is available – but says nothing about how pagination interacts with that ('all years' plus a per_page cap of 100 is an open question) or the shape of the returned wage figures.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why so much is left unsaid rather than a sign of disciplined editing.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is only minimally adequate. It conveys the core lookup but leaves out pagination behavior, the format/unit of the UMP values returned, and the boundary with ump_get and ump_list, all of which an agent would need to call this correctly on the first try.

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 only 33%: only province_code is documented (with an example, '11' for Aceh). The description restates the province_code intent but adds nothing about the page and per_page parameters, and 'all years' actually makes pagination semantics more important to clarify rather than less. With low coverage, the description should compensate for the two undocumented pagination parameters and does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('UMP data', disambiguated by the title 'Minimum wage by province'), and a scope ('one province by its code', 'all years'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools ump_get and ump_list, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for one province by its code' suggests this is the per-province path while ump_list presumably enumerates provinces, but the description never says when to choose this over ump_get or ump_list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance are given.

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