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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that filters are optional, saying nothing about pagination defaults, the per_page cap of 100, ordering of results, or whether an empty filter set returns everything.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and the filtering second, with no filler. The trailing 'including salary range' is slightly redundant with the schema but does surface the most useful filter early.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits pagination behavior and result-set shape, which matter for an agent deciding how to page through records. It also gives no hint about what an unfiltered call returns.

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 67% and the two undocumented parameters (page, per_page) are exactly the ones a callers most needs to understand. The description's mention of 'salary range' reinforces the min_salary/max_salary intent but adds no format, currency, or matching semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('Indonesian provincial minimum wage (UMK/UMP) records'), and it clarifies the UMK/UMP acronym that the tool name alone leaves opaque. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ump_get or ump_by_province, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'with optional filters including salary range' implies this is the tool to use when browsing or narrowing records rather than fetching a single value. However, no alternative is named and no condition is given for choosing this over ump_get or ump_by_province, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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