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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: ordering (soonest first), returned fields (new rate and source), and cost/auth posture ('Free'). It omits pagination, result caps, and whether announced-but-unscheduled changes are included, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then usage, then the state filter and cost note. Every sentence carries information, with only mild promotional tone in 'warn an employer'.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (new rate and source), ordering, geographic coverage, and cost/auth posture. Pagination behavior is the notable remaining gap, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 days, state, and from_date fully. The description adds only framing ('in a date window', 'Filter by state') without extra syntax or format detail, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Lists every scheduled or announced minimum wage change') with clear scope (state, county and city) and ordering ('soonest first'). It doesn't explicitly name get_minimum_wage as the contrasting sibling (current rates vs. upcoming changes), so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 gives a use context ('plan payroll or warn an employer before a rate rises'), which implies when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as get_minimum_wage for current in-force rates, leaving the sibling choice ambiguous.

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