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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the deprecation status, the 2026 year, 'burdened' nature of rates, and BLS derivation, which are useful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 description is one concise sentence that front-loads the critical deprecation notice and then packs the core function with specific details. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the purpose, deprecation, data source, and units. It doesn't explain 'burdened' in depth, but overall it is sufficiently complete for invoking the tool.

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%, fully documenting both state_code and trade. The description adds that rates are per hour and for construction trades, but does not provide additional syntax details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 2026 burdened construction trade labor rates in dollars per hour for a US state, sourced from BLS. It also explicitly names the replacement tool, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 opens with 'Deprecated: prefer remodeleriq_get_labor_rates,' which explicitly tells the agent to prefer an alternative. It also sets context for scope (US state, construction trade labor rates).

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