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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying that rates are 'burdened', 'derived from BLS wage data', and are for 2026, which communicates data vintage and basis beyond the 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?

Two sentences provide all necessary information: the first states the action, scope, source, and units; the second gives a real-world trigger. There is no filler or 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 lookup with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers what, source, output granularity, units, and intended usage. The presence of an output schema means detailed return formatting is unnecessary.

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?

The schema already documents state_code and trade with 100% description coverage. The description reinforces these with 'for a US state' and trade examples, but does not add syntax, constraints, or default-behavior 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get 2026 burdened construction trade labor rates ($/hour) for a US state, derived from BLS wage data.' It also lists example trades and a use case, which distinguishes it from cost-estimate and bid-analysis sibling tools.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a homeowner asks what trade labor should cost or whether a bid's labor line is fair.' However, it does not name sibling tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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