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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the wage is defined per 8 hours within prescribed working hours, and results default to the latest period unless history:true. It stops short of documenting row limits or return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by the default/history behavior and an example. The bilingual duplication is intentional for a Japanese-domain tool but doubles the length, keeping it just short of maximal efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers units, scope, defaults, and an example — enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps such as limit/pagination behavior that the schema already bounds (1-200).

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces semantics with examples (pref='奈良県', job='大工') and the history default, but adds little beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb (引く/retrieve) and resource (MLIT public-works design labor rates) with the exact scope: 47 prefectures x 50 trades, wage per 8 hours. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_jccdb_work_unit_price and get_jccdb_index_series.

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?

Explicitly states the default behavior (latest per region) and the condition that switches it (history:true for the yearly series), plus a concrete example. It gives clear usage context but does not name when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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